[Gareth321]

> Does this administration care to much about the law?

As a European my opinion of Trump could not be any lower, but it is my understanding that they have complied with all court orders to date (with some being contested all the way to the Supreme Court). They are certainly testing the authority limits of various courts and congressional processes, but they have complied with all legal processes to date.

[20after4]

I don't think this is accurate. According to the New York Times¹ (among numerous other sources), the government has defied court orders at least a small double-digit number of times.

"At least 35 times since August, federal judges have ordered the administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating their orders in immigration cases."

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/us/politics/judges-contem...

[mattmaroon]

“All” might be a stretch but the idea that they just do what they want regardless of what the courts say is just incorrect propaganda. And continuing to find creative ways to defy court orders is something every administration does. And my opinion of the administration is low also, I just don’t like the propaganda and have never understood why we need to make up things about them when there’s so much to dislike that isn’t fictional.

[Glemllksdf]

Wasn't the tarrifs thing one of the things he did illegaly and thats why they are now getting paid back?

Whats with the documents he put in his toilet?

Destroying the east wing. Its too late now right but shouldn't he followed some procedure?

I probably have plenty other examples but thats probablyh enough to get more insight. For me these cases feel like a mix of certain other parts should have steped in but have been ignored by trump and instead of doing their job, they don't because they all are either afraid or just behind trump. If this is the case, it might not be illegal but whats the right word then?

For the tarrifs, it feels like it should be clear that the way they did it was illegal but the law is just slow and because again the other parts aren't complaining, its not as illegal as it should be?

[bavell]

Nope, the original tariffs were under IEEPA, then Supreme Court ruled they didn't have authority to use IEEPA, so they had to drop those tariffs and start working on refunds. It'd only have been illegal if they kept the tariffs after the ruling.

Lot of propaganda & emotions around this straightforward chain of events.

[mindslight]

Under this reasoning, it's not illegal to just take things from stores (stores hate this one simple trick). If you're caught and your specific actions are then adjudicated to be illegal, at that point you can just start making a plan to bring the items back (even if some are used/damaged/etc) and everything is fine.

In reality of course, the actions were illegal the whole time. The big festering problem is that there is no actual punishment for government agents who break the law.

[bavell]

Definitely some problems in the current system, broad and creeping executive overreach extending back decades now.

Pretty sure stealing from stores is already illegal, not sure I understand your analogy... lots of case law / precedent there.

[mindslight]

The existence of case law / precedent does not affect whether something is "already illegal", but rather only how strongly one can predict if something is illegal. The original tariffs were illegal from day 1.

The point of the analogy was exactly to point at something with a lot of case law where this dynamic is crystal clear (although if Trump starts petty shoplifting after he's done looting our government, it's even odds whether this corrupt "court" will find some way to excuse it. Anything for the cause, of course)

[Glemllksdf]

So the USA was under

Wikipedia on IEEPA: "An Act with respect to the powers of the President in time of war or national emergency. "?

I mean thats very wishi washi. So are we both aligned that it looks like missuse? Because if its only about a word definition of no its not illegal what he did but a clear missconduct than it feels like word play.

[bavell]

I do agree it was a weak case, I think SCOTUS ruled correctly.

[mattmaroon]

None of those are examples of violating a court order, in fact the first is an example of following one. The second happened when he was out of office. The third is ongoing.

I definitely did not say he doesn’t get ruled against by the courts.

[nothrabannosir]

Notable exception: the TikTok ban.

[nothrabannosir]

There’s discussions in a (thankfully banned) sub thread pulling this into question so I just wanted to add sources:

> The short-form video-hosting service TikTok was under a de jure nationwide ban in the United States from January 19, 2025, until January 22, 2026, due to the US government's concerns over potential user data collection and influence operations by the government of the People's Republic of China. However, the ban was not enforced. The ban took effect after ByteDance, the China-based parent company of TikTok, refused to sell the service before the deadline of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). Prior to the ban, individual states, cities, universities, and government-affiliated devices had restricted TikTok.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_ban_TikTok_in_the_U...

and:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Americans_from_Fore...

Amy Howe, Supreme Court upholds TikTok ban, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 17, 2025, 12:00 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-upholds-tik...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf

The executive branch explicitly defied an act of Congress which was upheld by the Supreme Court. First Biden for one day, then Trump II as he took office and continued not to enforce the ban.

[vel0city]

This is far from reality. In truth the Trump administration has been ignoring court orders time and time again. Don't repeat lies.

> That does not end the Court’s concerns, however. Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted. This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230...

[andruby]

I am not a lawyer, but I think the Trump administration is not complying with:

0. "DOJ acknowledges violating dozens of recent court orders in New Jersey" [0]

1. In Minnesota, judges reported 94 court-order violations in January and, separately, one judge identified 210 orders in 143 cases where ICE had not complied. [1]

[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/18/trump-ice-immigrati...

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/us/politics/judges-contem...