7月，负责审理国家公园服务局所有高尔夫球场纠纷的法官提醒政府律师，她一直拒绝发布任何禁止国家公园服务局和内政部“采取任何行动”的正式命令。法官安娜·雷耶斯继续说道：“我所做的唯一一件事，而且甚至不是一项命令，而是一个请求，就是如果将有超过十棵树被砍伐，我们都应当知道” — — 这样原告才能重新提出紧急救济的请求 — — 并且她有足够时间审查该请求。
In July, the judge overseeing the dispute over a National Park Service-owned golf course reminded government lawyers that she had resisted issuing any firm orders precluding the NPS and Department of Interior “from doing anything.”Judge Ana Reyes continued, “The only thing I have done, and it wasn’t even an order, it was a request, was that if more than ten trees are going to get chopped down, that we all know” so that the plaintiffs could renew their request for emergency relief — and she had sufficient time to review that request.
但就在上周五下午临近5点、三天长周末到来之前，司法部向法院和原告提交了一份通知，称其预计将于次日开始开展一项“树木管理和文化景观修复项目”，该项目初步预计将清除260棵树，最终可能清除近530棵树。这足以让一位对政府的语言游戏和博弈感到沮丧的法官勃然大怒。
But last Friday, just shy of 5 p.m. before a three-day weekend, the Justice Department filed a notice informing the court and the plaintiffs that it expected to begin work the next day on a “tree management and cultural landscape rehabilitation project” expected to clear 260 trees initially and nearly 530 ultimately. It was enough to make a judge, frustrated with the administration’s semantics and gamesmanship, furious.
高尔夫球场案件 据国家公园服务局国家广场和纪念公园主管的宣誓声明称，该树木管理项目“并非高尔夫球场的翻新或重新设计，也不是任何潜在的球场翻新或重新设计项目的一部分，并且无论未来是否进行任何翻新或重新设计，都将予以实施。”相反，他坚持称，该项目旨在“利用现有资源完成长期被推迟的维护需求；并落实”2019年《文化景观报告》中关于华盛顿特区国家公园服务局管辖范围内高尔夫球场的建议。
The golf course case That tree management project, according to a sworn statement by the NPS’s director of the National Mall and Memorial Parks, “is not a renovation or redesign of the Golf Course, is not a part of any potential project to redesign or renovate the Golf Course, and would be carried out irrespective of any future renovation or redesign.”Instead, he insisted, it was intended to “utilize available resources to complete long-deferred maintenance needs; and to implement the recommendations” in a 2019 “Cultural Landscape Report” on the golf courses in Washington within the NPS’s control.
或许可以预见的是，原告在周日晚上提交紧急动议寻求救济后，雷耶斯法官严厉斥责了政府律师 — — 这些律师承认他们在该宣誓声明提交前一天就参与了其准备工作。
Perhaps predictably, after the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion Sunday night seeking relief, Reyes excoriated the government lawyers, who admitted involvement in preparing the NPS director’s sworn statement the day before it was filed.
“我对政府简直失望透顶。在这个案子上，我已竭尽人力所能及地给政府以信任的余地。我这样做已经好几个月了。”
“I am just beyond disappointed in the government. I have done everything humanly possible to give the government the benefit of the doubt in this case. I have done it for months.”
而在宣布一项临时令、禁止政府哪怕砍伐一棵树时，她表示：“除非有命令禁止砍伐，否则我毫不相信政府不会把它们砍了。”在雷耶斯法官的案子里，尚不清楚政府是否在无视任何法院命令；最坏的情况似乎也只是触犯了地区法官的强烈要求。
And in announcing a temporary order preventing the government from removing as much as even one tree, she stated, “I have no faith that the government is not going to cut them down unless there’s an order in place not to do so.”In Reyes’ case, it’s not clear the administration is defying any court order; at worst, it seems to have run afoul of a district judge’s strenuous request.
但过去一个月里，出现了其他几起政府明显违反地区法院命令的案件。
But over the last month, there have been other cases in which the administration has plainly violated district court edicts.
“特朗普广告案” 以曼哈顿联邦法官珍妮弗·罗琼上周发布的命令为例，该案挑战动用纳税人资金播放吹捧特朗普过去两年政绩的广告。除其他条款外，该命令指示被告——包括国土安全部、总统行政办公室、国土安全部长马克韦恩·马林和白幕僚长苏西·怀尔斯——“取消或促成取消有争议广告在10月11日周日的任何播放或传播时段、安排、预订或约定，包括这些安排在内”。
The Trump ads case Take the order issued last week by Judge Jennifer Rochon, a Manhattan-based federal judge, in a case challenging the use of taxpayer funds to air ads touting Trump’s achievements over the last two years. Among other provisions, that order directs the defendants, which include the Department of Homeland Security, the Executive Office of the President, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, to “cancel or cause to be cancelled any slot, placement, reservation, or arrangement for the airing or dissemination of the challenged s, including those placements” for Sunday, Oct. 11.
然而第二天，原告便通知罗琼法官，即使她的命令已生效，其中两条广告仍在两大主流电视网的新闻节目等时段播放了400多次。
Yet by the next day, plaintiffs notified Rochon that even after her order was in effect, two of the ads had aired in more than 400 spots including during news shows on two major networks.
政府随后致函法院——信函仅由曼哈顿联邦检察官办公室民事处处长签署——仅称：虽然司法部于10月11日晚约8点将命令通知了未具名的“机构律师”，但“机构律师直到第二天早上才知悉政府律师的邮件”，并“向法院和原告道歉”，同时坚称在所有其他方面，政府均遵守了该命令。
government’s subsequent letter— signed only by the chief of the civil division in Manhattan’s U.S. Attorney’s Office — said simply that although the DOJ notified unnamed “agency counsel” of her order at roughly 8 p.m. on Oct. 11, that “agency counsel did not become aware of Government counsel’s email until” the next morning and “apologize[d] to the Court and the plaintiffs” while insisting that in all other respects, the government was in compliance with her order.
与雷耶斯不同，雷耶斯似乎已经承认她之前的请求未达到实际司法命令的程度，而罗尚则可以可信地认为她的命令被忽视了。
Unlike with Reyes, who seems to have acknowledged that her earlier ask fell short of an actual judicial order, Rochon could credibly find her order was ignored.
但更棘手的问题是：谁该负责？具体来说，司法部律师本身是否应承担责任？或者他们既对故意削减甚至违反法院命令的人一无所知，又在为他们开脱？
But the harder question is who is to blame? And specifically, are DOJ lawyers themselves culpable? Or are they some combination of ignorant of and covering for those who are willfully curtailing or even violating court orders?
司法部致罗尚的信件在某种程度上回答了这个问题，至少在她的案件中。司法部表示，在一个周日晚上，它在收到命令大约一小时后将该命令发送给了受影响的机构，而这些机构本身则一直“睡着”——无论是字面意义上还是比喻意义上——直到第二天。换句话说，司法部的这位人士表示，他作为一线律师已经履行了职责，但他不会为他人的不作为承担责任。另一方面，他也不会点名这些人，甚至不会将他们的行为描述为偶然或无意的。
The letter DOJ sent to Rochon subtly answers that question, at least in her case. There, the DOJ signaled that on a Sunday night, it sent her order to the affected agencies roughly an hour after it came down and that the agencies themselves were literally or figuratively asleep at the wheel until the next day. Put another way, the DOJ’s guy is saying he did his job as the lawyer on the frontlines, but he won’t accept responsibility for others’ inaction. On the other hand, he won’t name those others or even characterize their conduct as accidental or unintentional.
目前尚不清楚罗尚是否会认为他的简短解释足够充分；她已安排在星期三早上举行一次面对面的会议。
It’s not clear that Rochon will find his brief explanation sufficient; she’s called an in-person conference for Wednesday morning.
雷耶斯似乎理解，司法部可能比那些至少到目前为止一直躲在律师 metaphorical 裙子下的政策制定者承担的责任要小。她现在已命令国家公园署代理署长和一名高级内政部任命官员在10月19日的初步禁令听证会上作证。
Reyes seems to understand that the DOJ might be less culpable than those policymakers who, at least thus far, have hidden under their lawyers’ metaphorical skirts. She has now ordered the acting director of the NPS and a high-ranking Interior appointee to testify at a preliminary injunction hearing on Oct. 19.
尽管她在七月时一直抵制给予原告救济，但雷耶斯曾对一名司法部律师说：“我对你有1000%的信心，”但“我非常确定，除了我们已知的之外，还发生了更多事情，包括你。”但两位法官看来都准备好调查：在他们面前的职业司法部律师在多大程度上参与了对法院的事实歪曲或隐瞒，同时也在审查当事人自身是否故意规避了他们的指示。
Even as she resisted giving the plaintiffs relief in July, Reyes told a DOJ lawyer, “I have 1,000 percent faith in you,” but “I am quite confident that more is happening than we’re aware of, including you.”But both judges appear ready to investigate whether and to what extent the career DOJ lawyers before them are complicit in misrepresenting or concealing facts from the court while also examining whether the clients themselves willfully skirted their directives.
驱逐案件 并且，根据他们所了解的情况以及政府未来的行为，两位法官都可能考虑对其面前的被告以藐视法庭罪追究责任，正如马里兰州地区法院的斯蒂芬妮·加拉格尔法官上个月所做的那样。
The deportation case And depending on what they learn and the administration’s future conduct, both judges potentially could consider holding the defendants before them in contempt, as Judge Stephanie Gallagher of the District of Maryland did last month.
加拉格尔法官正在审理一起持续多年的集体诉讼案，她在今年9月初得知，尽管她在2024年、2025年和2026年分别下达命令禁止政府这样做，但政府仍再次将一名寻求庇护的19岁萨尔瓦多男子驱逐出境。而在她作出藐视法庭裁决的几周前，政府承认该男子的驱逐是一次“错误遣返”。正如我之前所写的那样，目前尚不清楚藐视法庭裁决是否足以改变行为，至少在此届政府期间是这样。
Gallagher, who is presiding over a yearslong class action, learned in early September that the administration had again deported a 19-year-old Salvadoran man seeking asylum despite her orders in each of 2024, 2025 and 2026 forbidding them from doing so. And weeks prior to her contempt ruling, the government admitted that the man’s deportation was an “erroneous removal.” as I’ve written previously it’s not clear that a contempt ruling is enough to change behavior, at least during this administration.
就在该藐视法庭裁决作出大约两周后，该男子仍未被送回美国。事实上，根据其律师的说法，美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）甚至尚未批准其律师获取其与该局之间通信的副本。
Roughly two weeks after that contempt ruling, the man has not been returned to the United States. In fact, according to his lawyers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not even granted his counsel’s request to be copied on communications between ICE and their client.
再次，这足以让法官愤怒 — — 并且可能解释为什么，至少到目前为止，雷耶斯表现出了愤怒，但尚未对政府采取任何纪律处分或其他措施。
Again, it’s enough to make a judge furious — and could explain why, at least so far, Reyes has shown that fury but has taken no disciplinary or other measures against the government.
但值得关注的是，雷耶斯 — — 或者罗尚 — — 何时以及是否会从愤怒转向实际的藐视法庭行为。
But it’s worth watching when and whether Reyes — or Rochon — goes from anger to actual contempt.
该帖子 特朗普政府在三起联邦案件中无视法官指令 — — 并且可能公然违法 MS NOW
The post 3 federal cases where the Trump administration is flouting the directive of the judge — and might be outright violating the law MS NOW