During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, DOJ nominees D. John Sauer and Aaron Reitz faced questions regarding the adherence to court orders. Sauer emphasized that federal or state officials generally should follow direct court orders but expressed that historical perspective may question the validity of certain orders, like Korematsu v. U.S. Conversely, Reitz termed the inquiry into defying court orders based on moral stances as "too hypothetical," revealing the intricate balance between legal obligations and moral considerations in the justice system.
"Generally, if there's a direct court order that binds a federal or state official, they should follow it," Sauer stated. However, he questioned the historical adherence to certain orders.
Sauer also noted, "some historians might think we'd be better off" if the 1944 Korematsu decision had not been followed, highlighting the complexities in obeying court orders.
Aaron Reitz claimed it would be "too hypothetical" to discuss whether litigants can defy court orders over moral disagreements, indicating a cautious approach to the issue.
Reitz remarked, "There is no hard and fast rule in all instances in which a litigant must comply with all or some or various parts" of court orders.
Collection
[
|
...
]