What if the Legislative and Executive Branches ignored a Supreme Court ruling?

[VBM]

If the court ruled that a certain federal law was unconstitutional, but a majority of the House, Senate, and Executive Branch just ignored the court’s ruling and enforced said law anyways, what would happen?

[brucejoel99]

Theoretically, the Court could hold those who do so in contempt of court, but beyond the 145 sworn members of the Supreme Court Police, they don't really have the physical means that would be necessary to enforce their orders if/when it came down to it.

[VBM]

Theoretically, the Court could hold those who do so in contempt of court, but beyond the 145 sworn members of the Supreme Court Police, they don't really have the physical means that would be necessary to enforce their orders if/when it came down to it.

So basically, the only thing giving the SC their power is the public’s respect for the institution

[VBM]

Theoretically, the Court could hold those who do so in contempt of court, but beyond the 145 sworn members of the Supreme Court Police, they don't really have the physical means that would be necessary to enforce their orders if/when it came down to it.

I wonder if we’ll ever get to a point where the people get so fed up with the SC that the majority of the nation and the politicians are fine with just ignoring the SC’s ruling. Republicans certainly aren’t trying to steer us away from that point

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

State resistance would be the only recourse should this happen. That's a double-edged sword, as the state can rebel against an unjust federal law OR reject a federal law or ruling undoing their own injustice.

[freepcrusher]

the question is would democrats be ok with Alabama banning abortion if they could basically ban rifles/shotguns in New York. My hope is that they would say yes as that's a pretty good deal.

[Gary J]

There might be problems with enforcing a law deemed unconstitutional, if the courts bound by the Supreme Court decision would not grant any legal process to enforce the law against individuals who had broken it.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

the question is would democrats be ok with Alabama banning abortion if they could basically ban rifles/shotguns in New York. My hope is that they would say yes as that's a pretty good deal.

That's not a good deal at all.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Theoretically, the Court could hold those who do so in contempt of court, but beyond the 145 sworn members of the Supreme Court Police, they don't really have the physical means that would be necessary to enforce their orders if/when it came down to it.

Couldn't they send the US Marshalls to arrest anyone disobeying their rulings?

[Dereich]

Theoretically, the Court could hold those who do so in contempt of court, but beyond the 145 sworn members of the Supreme Court Police, they don't really have the physical means that would be necessary to enforce their orders if/when it came down to it.

Couldn't they send the US Marshalls to arrest anyone disobeying their rulings?

The US Marshall's Office is run by the executive. I'd assume that the head of the UMO would follow the lead of the President who appointed him.

[Blue3]

It's happened before, but not for a while.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

“Mr. Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.”

[Vosem]

It's happened before, but not for a while.

It has not. Mr. Marshall made a decision striking down a Georgia state law which prohibited unauthorized white men from entering Indian territory (which was used as a pretext to arrest opponents of Removal), and then did not inform the US Marshals of the decision (in principle, it would have been their role to enforce the ruling on Georgia).

Georgia cooperated voluntarily.