Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ancianita

(42,973 posts)
8. I hear you. Thanks. But that was for criminal contempt, right? This would be for civil contempt by cabinet officials.
Wed Jan 14, 2026, 05:01 AM
Yesterday

Cabinet secretaries have qualified immunity, not absolute immunity, for their official functions. What Roberts' maga 6 ruled doesn't apply here, and so won't stand up on appeal. Which is why so many in trump's cabinet have been sued for violating statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known about.
Civil Contempt sanctions can involve coercive fines or even in this particular case, imprisonment until the official complies with the order.
Cabinet members just don't have a blanket immunity from the judicial process.
And past DOJ's have held that officials held in civil contempt should be forced to comply with court orders. Just not the Bondi DOJ.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Rubio says US does not kn...»Reply #8