Recent dismissals and unraveling legal procedures in high-profile cases are fueling this trending discussion. People are reacting to perceived political motivations behind prosecutions and the resulting loss of significant cases, expressing concern over the integrity and competence of the Justice Department and its impact on justice for victims and the accused. The human angle stems from outrage over alleged abuses of power and the erosion of faith in the legal system.
DOJ Cases
PoliticsCurrently Trending
![Accordingly, the Government maintains that its actions did not violate the Court’s
order—certainly not with the clarity required for criminal contempt—and no further proceedings
are warranted or appropriate. Indeed, the mere fact that Judge Katsas agreed with Defendants’
interpretation of the TRO means that the order could not have been so “clear and decisive” that it
left “no doubt about what it require[d] to be done,” as criminal contempt requires. United States
v. Joyce, 498 F.2d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 1974); see also Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3d Cir.
1971) (“long-standing, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders
redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt”); United States ex rel. Yelverton v.
Fed. Ins. Co., 831 F.3d 585, 587 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (same).
10. Nevertheless, insofar as the Court has inquired into the identities of the decisionmaking officials for purposes of making a potential criminal referral, the actions were taken by
DHS (through Secretary Noem) after being formally advised about compliance with this Court’s
order both by DOJ leadership and the Acting General Counsel of DHS.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:qqdqgzpqwyho4cxzso62m54q/bafkreieabw7jaju4xufouskydmfdiwrac2pwmdl6rc24ecurqwvnxsgngi@jpeg)
