Sure there's a difference. A judge, by himself, has zero enforcement authority outside the four walls of his courtroom.
Generally speaking, the executive and legislative branches tend to be deferential to the courts because they fear anarchy if they don't.
Judges get deferred to because they are generally seen as fair-minded, impartial and without a specific axe to grind. But as judges get more "activist" that image of impartiality diminishes (and the sad thing is, it only takes a few judges to diminish the credibility of ALL judges.)
But as we've seen over and over with Trump, the "old rules" don't seem to apply.
I've often wondered what would happen if, say, in a case like this, Trump simply said "no." What are Acosta and CNN going to do then? Run back to the same judge? And suppose the judge "orders" the press secretary or some other individual to come into court and explain why they aren't following his injunction, but that official says "no", what then?
The federal court has no "police force" they can send. Their power rests solely in their reputation and in the hope that the executive branch won't risk opening Pandora's Box by simply telling the Court to go pound sand.
I'm envisioning that scene in the movie "Tombstone", right after the shootout at the OK corral, when Sheriff Behan approaches the victorious Earp group and says "You're all under arrest" and Wyatt just says "No, Behan, I don't think I'm going to let you arrest me today."
EDITED TO ADD: There is some precedence here: Worcester v. Georgia 31, U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). SCOTUS ruled that a Georgia law prohibiting whites from being on Indian territory was unconstitutional because the authority to deal with Indian tribes was vested in the Federal government, not the States. But the law stayed on the books and the petitioner Worcester stayed in prison.
President Andrew Jackson, who disagreed with the ruling, is reported to have said "Justice Marshall has rendered his opinion. Now let him enforce it!"






Reply With Quote
