> But after a binding ruling is issued, I'd assume there would be personal sanctions, liability and likely criminal charges against any individuals involved in

> But after a binding ruling is issued, I'd assume there would be personal sanctions, liability and likely criminal charges against any individuals involved in defying that decision. That's not accurate: Power in the US government is of course separated between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and each has checks and balances on the other two. One check the executive has on the judicial is to ignore its rulings. The executive can't do it all the time, obviously, and afaik the US also generally embraces 'judicial supremacy', the idea that the judicial branch generally gets the last word. Also, I don't recall the judiciary sanctioning indiviuals in the executive branch, but I could be wrong [Edit: of course I'm wrong, see below]. I would guess they've never sanctioned a president. Perhaps the most famous use of this power was in Worcester v. Georgia; when his favored side lost the case, President Andrew Jackson reputedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." (Inspiring rhetoric, but it led eventually to Native Americans having their land stolen and many being marched to their deaths.)