Justice Alito wants to know what a state should do if a court orders it to draw a new congressional map under faulty logic. Put more broadly, what should a litigant do if it believes that a court has made an order in error?
The answer, of course, is to obey the court order. Decisions can be appealed, and sometimes confronted through the political process. But if anyone could simply discard a court order they disagreed with, we would not be governed by the rule of law.
Alito’s query in Monday’s oral arguments in a redistricting case from Louisiana laid out a very different approach—one that is particularly troubling at this very moment, as the Trump administration is repeatedly disobeying court orders. The administration has not declared a right to ignore the courts, but its lawyers are toeing the line of malpractice in multiple cases by dodging court orders. Whether it is refusing to turn around planes carrying nearly 300 migrants to a labor camp in El Salvador or to release federal funding that the administration claims it can refuse to spend, the Trump administration is currently trying to blow past the orders of federal judges to enact its anti-democratic agenda.
Monday’s complicated case concerned how Louisiana drew a second majority-Black district as the result of rulings from both a federal district court and the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in another case, Robinson v. Landry. Alito wanted to know if obeying this court order was actually required:
“What if the Robinson decision were plainly wrong?” Alito asked. “Would you still have a good reason to follow it?”
Louisiana’s solicitor general, Benjamin Aguiñaga, agreed that a wildly bad decision might be the rare kind of situation in which a state could not rely on a court order to justify its new map. But Alito pressed on, positing even weaker cases where a court might be ignored:
“What if it weren’t wildly wrong?” the justice asked. “You look at it and it’s wrong. They misapplied something.”
Several other justices likewise questioned the correctness of Robinson before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stepped in to point out how dangerous this entire line of thinking is to the rule of law. “I’m still a little confused as to why it matters whether the court order was right or not,” Jackson said. “You were still being compelled by a court to do what you did in this case. Correct?”
