With respect, we might not be observing the same things at the same places. I saw an DDA blow up her own case (defendant accused of putting GPS tracker on ex-girlfriend’s car) by accidentally mentioning that they traced a GPS tracker back to [defendant’s first name].[defendant’s surname]@gmail.com, and the judge decided this was fatal to their case because they forgot to put the name of the GPS tracker company employee on their witness list.

This guy was 100% guilty. Two witnesses saw him do it and they found his fingerprints on the tracker.

State v. Landon Heath Higgins, Oregon Circuit Court, case number 23CR14417 if interested.

Judges generally issue escalating sanctions. A verbal admonition first, then a verbal threat to impose sanctions, then an order to show cause, then actual penalties.

Despite what the media reports, the Administration always folds and complies because it would be embarrassing to have senior officials or government lawyers actually penalised for failing to comply with a court order.

Remember in the early days of Trump II when we were hearing about entire US Attorney’s offices quitting in protest? That no longer happens, but that’s what happens when top brass asks experienced, career lawyers to defend positions they know are indefensible, and insists they sign their name to hot garbage, that they know is the same kind as what got Rudy Guiliani disbarred.

So yes, the Trump Justice Department is indeed running out of good lawyers and that’s why the US Attorney’s Office for DC is led by a Fox News commentator who happens to have a law degree.

Well, as I’ve quickly learned, pretty much nothing in law is an absolute rule. Judges love making their exceptions.

If this is illegal (which I am not convinced that it is, even though it certainly should be), then a judge can order Palantir or the relevant government agencies to destroy the data. If there is a question about whether this order will be complied with, the court can appoint a special master to oversee it, but this is rare. Usually what happens is the court will take their word on it, but if it turns out they lied, then the court will impose a stiff penalty for contempt of court.

Disciplinary referrals are issued against lawyers who break the court rules. Contempt of court is used against anyone (lawyer or not) who violates a direct order from the court. A lawyer who blatantly violates an order may receive both a disciplinary referral and also a contempt of court penalty.

Before a court issues a penalty of any kind against anyone, they usually issue what is called an order to show cause, which essentially means the party accused of violating the rules must appear before the judge and explain why they should not receive a penalty.

Disciplinary referrals are addressed to the state bar association, which are organisations comparable to guilds which license lawyers. The bar association can impose penalties against the lawyer which include:

• Censure, a formal finger-wagging which leaves a permanent mark on their licence and is generally considered detrimental to future job prospects
• Mandatory ethics training or re-take bar exam
• Temporary suspension of their licence to practise law
• Disbarment and expulsion from the bar association, which permanently revokes the lawyer’s licence to practise law. This typically cascades to all bar associations across the country.

An example: Rudy Guiliani was a Trump lawyer who filed submissions before several courts containing information he knew to be false and raising allegations he knew were unsubstantiated, as a part of Trump’s scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election. The New York bar association disbarred him for this, and the DC bar association took note and automatically disbarred him as well. His legal career is finished; he cannot legally be employed as a lawyer anywhere in the country.

Contempt of court is an inherent power of the court to punish people who violate its orders. A judge can, on their own initiative, declare someone guilty of contempt of court and impose a punishment for it, which could include:

• A fine, possibly an increasing fine until the order is complied with. The fine is paid personally by the person found guilty of contempt of court and no immunities apply.
• Imprisonment for a fixed term, usually not more than a month
• Imprisonment until the person complies with the order
• Anything else the judge comes up with, that does not violate Amendment 8 of the US Constitution or relevant laws

Example: A lawyer was fined $10,000 in March 2026 by my state’s Court of Appeal for submitting a brief containing AI hallucinations.

I’m a law student in the US, so I’m actually privy to this information in the form of all the talks that they have judges and lawyers giving.

You may not assume that the US judiciary is healthy and functioning, but it is not as broken as most international observers (or chronically online Americans) think it is. In particular, if you have been observing the Department for Justice’s results recently, you’ll notice a few things:

1. Because the Department has been hiring for loyalty and not legal skill, the Department has lost most of its prior prestige. Previously, clerking for the Department was a competitive law school position. Now, the top legal minds then to avoid it. As a result, the quality of legal skill at the Department has decreased, drastically.
2. Judges in the federal judiciary, with the exception of some notable Trump cronies, is actually very willing to uphold existing procedural law and rule against the government. It happens extremely regularly.
3. When judicial orders are ignored, it is almost always temporary and not in any lasting way. Federal judges still do threaten and issue contempt of court penalties and disciplinary referrals to officials who blatantly disobey court orders.

So in short, you are partially correct and partially wrong. The judiciary of the US has shown to be remarkably resilient considering it has withstood two years of a fascist in power and in full control of the legislature.

In the US, if cops get into a phone before a warrant, even if a warrant is issued later, all evidence from the phone is suppressed as illegally obtained.

This is a bigger concern with respect to intelligence agencies who conduct mass surveillance.