Judges, which for years have largely been in accord with federal prosecutors, have found themselves having to take remarkable steps to force compliance with Trump administration attorneys and prosecutors. The Trump administration is apparently well aware of judges’ increasingly strong-armed tactics to force compliance out of its defiant attorneys and prosecutors — and they want the hammer to stop dropping, reports Law and Crime.
In February, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino held an Army lawyer assigned to the Justice Department in civil contempt. With no better target to hit in the government’s repeated violation of an order to return an arrested man’s property, the judge ordered lawyer Matthew Isihara to pay $500 per day fine until the government returned the Minnesota man’s identification documents.
At the time, Provinzino blasted the Justice Department of President Donald Trump for its handling of the case, accusing the department’s Minneapolis office of skirting orders and blaming staffing shortages “again, and again, and again.”
With one of its lawyers facing a daily fine for the department’s bad behavior, the administration quickly located and returned the property before any fines accrued, which purged the contempt.
But now Trump attorneys argue that’s not enough, and they seek a ruling condemning the attempt to hold an attorney liable for an agency client’s behavior.
“That was a wholly improper use of coercive civil contempt: Mr. Isihara had no ability himself to ‘commit an affirmative act’ to purge the contempt,” the department argues before a panel of judges.
Justice Department attorney Daniel Tenny further warned that “The District Court held an attorney in contempt in an effort to coerce conduct from an attorney’s client. That mechanism of driving a wedge between the lawyer and the client by inserting the lawyer’s personal interests in an effort to secure compliance by the client is entirely improper.”
Only the punitive tactic worked where others did not — after days of the court requesting the feds comply.
Members of the judicial panel were unsure what to even do with the fed’s complaint. And since the feds finally ponied up the man’s property before any monetary penalty was issued, the appellate panel struggled with establishing standing.
“I mean, what would we do even to redress any injury that had been inflicted here, even if it did occur?” asked U.S. Circuit Judge Bobby E. Shepherd, who wondered why the case isn’t “moot,” reports Law and Crime.
“Tenny argued, however, that logic would discourage attorneys from settling disputes.
But amicus curiae Jeffrey Justman, appointed by the court to argue in support of Provinzino’s effective contempt order, countered that the panel should affirm or toss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, “either because the case is moot because the contempt has been purged, or because before the appeal was initiated, the contempt had been purged and therefore there was no injury.”
The Trump Department of Justice lost thousands of experienced staff — many of whom are attorneys — and it has so far been unable to bring in enough new talent to make up for its losses. Isihara was one of the many temp attorneys routed in from the military and other sources to fill the holes.