The Supreme Court has long held that “a pardon cannot stop” courts from punishing cases of civil contempt. And while the marshals have traditionally enforced civil contempt orders, the courts have the power to deputize others to step in if they refuse to do so.

This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

The next section, Rule 4.1(b), is entitled, “Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt.” It sets some geographical limits for where “[a]n order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction” may be served based on the federal vs. state nature of the underlying lawsuit. But it does not say who may enforce such an order, and it never modifies the general rule that process may be served by a marshal, deputy marshal or person specially appointed for that purpose. Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250317014025/https://www.democracydocket.com/opinion/if-the-marshals-go-rogue-courts-have-other-ways-to-enforce-their-orders/