The Rule of Law Finally Comes for Donald Trump

On Tuesday, a court of law held a former president of the United States, Donald Trump, in criminal contempt. In 235 years of American presidents, this has never happened before. Sadly, it’s probably going to happen again, and soon—further contempt sanctions may be necessary to actually restrain Trump’s actions during his Manhattan criminal trial. Nonetheless, with today’s contempt order, we are all witnesses to judicial and presidential history.

New York Judge Juan Merchan found Trump guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” on nine occasions for violating his March 26 order restricting Trump’s extrajudicial speech. Such orders are imposed “to protect the dignity of the judicial system and to compel respect for its mandates.” This one forbadeTrump from “making … public statements about … witnesses” or about the jury, which he did despite warnings.

As the first step at enforcement, Justice Merchan imposed fines of $1,000 per violation. The New York Judiciary Law gives judges only two options in this situation—a fine of up to $1,000 or jail. Trump will have to pay $9,000 for his violations.

For those who have followed the trial process, this ruling may not be surprising—but it is momentous nonetheless. Trump’s conduct has been contemptuous of courts and authority for so long, and he has repeatedly crossed lines they have established. Finally, a judge has imposed formal sanctions.

For all of Trump’s complaints that a trial of a former president is unprecedented, a court entering a judgment of criminal contempt on a former president is unprecedented as well. We’re witnessing a remarkable new event in the enduring story of America’s constitutional government.

For reasons of politics or pathology, Trump persists in making his “never-before-has-this-happened” statements to underscore his own supposed victimhood. But the grand jury’s indictment rests on a simple premise. No former president has done what Trump is alleged to have done mere weeks before a presidential election—buy off potential sources of reports about his scandalous past in order to “kill” stories that might influence voters choosing the country’s leader.

The bitter irony here is that Trump’s continuing false attacks on witnesses, prosecutors, judges, and their families now arise when he is literally on trial for criminally falsifying business records under New York law, allegedly to cover up his own fraud on democracy.

More than one of the 46 presidents of the United States has been unworthy of the responsibility or the honor. But only one has now been held in criminal contempt, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law.

That’s for good reason. Up until Trump, it was clearly understood that “In America the law is king.” In January 1776, Tom Paine wrote those words in Common Sense:

From the time of America’s birth, that principle, while far from perfectly executed, has been our lodestar. Unfortunately, since 2015, when Trump rode down that escalator, we’ve become accustomed to his abnormality.

For example, normal criminal defendants, under an order not to attack witnesses or jurors, tend to acknowledge the power of the law and comply. Trump searches for the weak link in that power and tests judges by walking up to and past the line. He dares the court to jail him.

Much as he fears losing his freedom even for a moment, Trump understands that a jailing could enhance his martyrdom, which is the political brand he cultivates. He likely hopes it would spur his most violent followers to action, help him get elected, and empower his revenge. Judges understand that Trump has, improperly, put them between a rock and a very hard place. To his credit, Merchan remained patient, but did not flinch.

The contempt order was predictable. More than eight months ago, we wrote:

Having now been issued, the contempt order is no less significant. Merchan has announced unmistakably to a former president, “No person—including you, sir—is above the law.”

Notably, Merchan did not find Trump guilty in all 10 cases of violations alleged by prosecutors. The court made clear that it was “keenly aware of, and protective of, Defendant’s First Amendment rights, particularly given his candidacy for the office of President of the United States.” Accordingly, the court allowed Trump to respond to attacks on him by witnesses—which is why Merchan ruled that Trump’s April 10 post attacking Michael Cohen was arguably a response to Cohen’s social posting the day before.

Beyond that, the court fired a warning shot at Cohen and Stormy Daniels, who are both slated to testify. Judge Merchan expressed concern that the two potential witnesses were using the court’s restraints on Trump “as a sword instead of a shield.” Merchan’s order signals that the court could at some point stop protecting them from Trump’s attacks, depending on their future public statements.

Merchan’s balanced statements in these regards should engender respect from higher courts on appeal, making them loath to overturn the ruling below. At the same time, Merchan did not hesitate to foreshadow what’s in store for Trump if he continues his defiant posting in the context of the state’s $1,000 limit on contempt fines:

Now, a firm jurist has put Trump to a difficult choice—between publicly pursuing martyrdom and time on Rikers Island. In this historic moment, a would-be authoritarian continues testing the law. We may rightly anticipate the need for further court sanctions, but that should not stop us from appreciating that on this day the rule of law is standing firm in Manhattan.