Carole Levine, Chair: Courts Matter Illinois
June 23, 2025
We hear all kinds of “pithy quotes” these days and many of them relate to our courts and judges. The one that seems to recur most often states: “The Courts Will Not Save Us.” As a non-lawyer who follows the courts (at the local, state and national levels), I have many questions about this statement… but I do not dispute it.
The question that haunts me the most is: What will happen when this Administration refuses to follow a court ruling? The courts have the power to render judgement, but others must carry it out. If the judgement involves sending someone to jail or prison, then that burden falls to law enforcement and others in the judicial system to carry out the incarceration. But if the judgement is a “cease and desist” order, indicating that an action (either planned or in process) is illegal, the real burden of following the law as rendered by a judge (or panel of judges) falls to the losing side in the dispute. The vast majority of American adults believe the Trump administration must comply with federal court orders, though the president’s strongest supporters are split over the issue, according to a new NBC News Decision Desk Poll. In the poll, 81% of U.S. adults say that if a federal court rules that an administration action is illegal, then the administration has to follow its ruling, while 19% say the administration can ignore the ruling and continue its action.
According to the Institute for Policy Integrity, Trump’s administration has failed nearly 93% of the time when its agency actions have been challenged in court — typically for violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations and how they handle adjudications. It also establishes the standards for judicial review of agency actions. Enacted in 1946, the APA aims to ensure fairness, transparency, and public participation in administrative processes.
So here we have a long-standing law that is being regularly ignored or challenged by this Administration. And it is up to the courts hold the government to account. More often than not, the administration is on the losing side of these court cases. Clearly, this does not sit well with the President. As I write this, he has yet to blatantly ignore a court ruling, but his efforts to deny and delay have taken a toll on these processes. What this has not done yet is leave the public in doubt of the courts. But this is not for lack of trying. Trust in our court system is critical to ensuring a strong democracy. It is why questioning that trust becomes an important tool in this Administration’s toolbox.
Labeling it “Court Baiting”, Jacob Knutson writes about how this process is being used. This tactic entails forcing the judiciary to take potentially unpopular decisions that are necessary to protect constitutional principles — then attacking the courts for those decisions. Used by dictators, worldwide, “court baiting” wears away the public’s perceptions of the viability and wisdom of the court system. When everyone second guesses court decisions, the strength of our legal system is undermined. The rule of law comes into question as well as the legitimacy of the courts.
A case in point that has moved through the courts in the last few weeks is about the President’s ability to federalize and use the National Guard in “quelling” seeming unrest in Los Angeles. Writing for her Civil Discourse blog, Joyce Vance unwraps the decision of Judge Charles Breyer (yes, brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer) which has left the issue of Presidential powers in debate. In order to render a legal decision in this dispute, Vance writes:
Judge Breyer starts by reviewing bedrock constitutional principles, like the duty judges have to decide what the law is, going back to 1803. He concludes that federal courts have “no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction, which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.”
Judge Breyer then explains that before a president can exercise the discretion the law gives to him to decide how many National Guard members or units to federalize if there is a rebellion, whether or not there in fact is a rebellion has to be established. And that’s where the courts come in. It is only after that factual matter, whether there is a rebellion, is established, that a president has discretion he can exercise that cannot be questioned. It’s like a math problem where you have to perform the operations in the correct order. Courts can review the threshold question of whether there is a rebellion, and only if they agree, can a president federalize the California Guard at will.
Judge Breyer then works through what would actually cause a protest to become a rebellion and indicates that it must include the following: It must be violent, organized, open and avowed, and against the government as a whole. Given this standard, the Judge concludes that “The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of ‘rebellion.’” Clearly this was not the outcome that the Administration sought but it brought great relief to many in LA and other cities who anticipated the arrival of federal troops to enforce Trump’s edicts.
Judge Breyer writes that “the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion.” And this is where the screw turns from the Administration expecting the courts to uphold whatever the Administration seeks, as they did in the 2024 Supreme Court (Trump v. United States) ruling last year on Presidential immunity. In doing this, the court’s 6-3 majority freed presidents to use their official powers to engage in criminal acts substantially free of accountability. Could this include federalizing a state’s national guard to become the soldier’s carrying out the President’s orders? Apparently, Judge Breyer says “no.”
I, again, ask the question I raised earlier… “What happens when the Administration refuses to follow a judicial ruling?” I don’t have an answer, but as someone who cares deeply about the rule of law and the boundaries and safety it provides, I worry about this. Another “pithy quote” that is often used these days is: “No one is above the law.” As I follow the actions of our current leadership and its deference, or lack of deference, to court rulings, I worry greatly about the stability of our government and our future
