TRUMP ALLY CAROLINE WREN HELD IN CONTEMPT AND FINED $2K PER DAY FOR REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH JAN 6 LAWSUIT SUBPOENA. NEXT STOP: JAIL

Oh yeah, this judge means business!

Caroline Wren was one of the organizers of the Jan 6 riot. In a lawsuit by the Capitol Police, they subpoenaed her to get records related to her involvement in the Jan 6 debacle. To date, she has willfully refused to comply with that subpoena, and so the judge has held her in contempt, and is fining her $2000 a day in contempt charges until she complies. And if she still fails to comply, the judge has said clearly that "failure to comply may result in additional sanctions, including possible confinement." In other words, jail.

What's more, in reviewing the events leading up to this, it's clear that Ms. Wren was *evading service*, meaning that she was intentionally making herself difficult to find whenever the person tried to serve her with the subpoena (that person is known as the "process server" and the act of serving a legal document is known as "service of process"). So the Court got the U.S. Marshal service involved, and the Marshals served her.

(When I was in private practice I actually once had to spend hours staking out an opposing party's house because she was evading service. As soon as I saw her come home I notified the process server so that they could serve her. True story. It felt so cloak-and-dagger!)

Relatedly, let me 'splain something to you, because lots of people have asked me about this:

The primary enforcement arm for the Federal courts is the U.S. Marshal service.

The U.S. Marshals can and do serve warrants and subpeonas, *and make arrests*, on behalf of the Federal courts. In addition, as written right into our Federal law, "It is the primary role and mission of the United States Marshals Service to provide for the security and to obey, execute, and enforce all orders of the United States District Courts, the United States Courts of Appeals, the Court of International Trade, and the United States Tax Court, as provided by law."

Now, of course, the U.S. Marshals are overseen by the Department of Justice, which is part of the executive branch. This means that *in theory* Trump *could* tell the DOJ to order the U.S. Marshals to not execute a lawful order of the Court. In other words, order them to *not* go arrest someone.

HOWEVER...

There is a workaround IN THE LAW specifically for when a court is being thwarted by the DOJ. The court can escalate the charge to criminal contempt (the crime being committed is refusing to follow the court order). At that point the court can apply to the Attorney General (also in the executive branch) to have an administration attorney assigned to prosecute.

AND the law very clearly states: "The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, UNLESS THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THE APPOINTMENT OF ANOTHER ATTORNEY. IF THE GOVERNMENT DECLINES THE REQUEST, THE COURT *MUST* APPOINT ANOTHER ATTORNEY TO PROSECUTE THE CONTEMPT."

Did you catch that "must"? MUST APPOINT ANOTHER ATTORNEY. Not may. Must. Remember how I've said elsewhere exactly how much a single word in a court order or a law can matter? When a law says "must" or "shall", rather than "may", it means exactly what it says - the thing *must* be done.

So, the answer to the question that I often get, "What can the Federal court do if they simply refuse to serve the subpoena or make the arrest?" is, they've got ways. ;~)