Republican party openly supports this. It is not just refusal to hold them accountable, it is active, open and complete support.

Really? The judiciary refusing to hold the government accountable is nothing new. One huge example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

ONE person was held accountable. One of the kids for cash judges convicted kids for money ... and didn't pay taxes on the kickbacks. He got convicted for "both" factors, excpept PLENTY of people involved in the convicting kids for cash, including lawmakers, didn't get convicted at all.

One can barely imagine what the punishment would be for a private individual kidnapping >2000 kids for on average 3 months each, with several of those kids committing suicide as a result? Kidnapping, because that's exactly what the state did here. What do you think if you or I did that, the punishment would be? I'm thinking somewhere between consecutive life sentences and death, and 100k+ USD per kid.

The state decided NO punishment, except a short house arrest stint for one of the judges that also didn't pay taxes was enough.

Oh, and to add insult to injury:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/14/kids-for-cas...

Or take the Flint lead poisoning crisis, and compare civil liability to what the government did when it was the culprit, rather than the benificiary. Compare and contrast:

Private company causes lead poisoning? On average $300,000 USD per victim, paid within 2 years of the poisoning. In some cases people served jail sentences of weeks to months, which isn't much but it's at least not zero.

Government causes lead poisoning? Flint water crisis: On average $2000 USD per victim (though some kids got $100,000, though that didn't cover their medical bills), paid >8 years after the case started. And this is purely based on the flint poisoning crisis, and ignores the many smaller cases the government simply got away with it. Not a single person, even the ones who were directly personally responsible and refused to turn up to court saw a single second of jail time.

(and that is ignoring that most of those private companies were convicted of doing what was considered safe, and often not promptly stopping when they knew it damaged people. The government started hurting people and ignored people telling them this would cause lead poisoning)

Depends on the court and the order. Fairly commonly (as occurred in the case where this list was enumerated after compliance with the preceding order was acheived by threat of sanctions), the first consequence of violating an order will be a renewed order with with a threat of sanctions (e.g., a show cause hearing as to why you should not be punished if you fail to compmy by a certain time), with potentially compensation sought by the opposing party for any costs accrued because of your noncompliance, but no punitive sanctions if you comply timely after the second order on the matter, though the nature of the order, the significant of noncompliance on the process of the case, the judge, the opposing party (while they don't order sanctions, they can request them and make a case), and other factors effect this—one of those factors being whether the judge believes that you are a serial offender who has been put on notice about the same kind of failure.

This list by itself own description seems to have been compiled rapidly by surveying other judges after the order for conpliance or a show cause hearing and perhaps even after compliance occurred. And now its available to be pointed too in other cases.

I mean, depends- if I steal from my employer I go to jail, if my employer steals my wages they get a fine.

If I murder someone in cold blood on the street, I might not make it off the scene before getting gunned down; if a government agent summarily executes a protester, they might get a couple days vacation and a heft goFundme payout.

Nothing new there, though... if, for instance, in 1955 a random black kid has some white guys think he looked at the wrong woman in the wrong way, he might get violently killed that day; the men who do that killing might never face -any- consequences.

So the answer to your question is highly variable and has been for all of the time that anyone I know has been alive. The application of law in the US is and has always been mostly determined by class and race.

Federal court orders (judicial branch) are enforced by federal law enforcement such as marshals, FBI, ATF, and so on (executive branch).

If the executive branch is lawless, then there’s selective enforcement. We are seeing the emergence of the dual state. Authoritarianism that follows the law sometimes so it sorta looks legitimate but sometimes isn’t at all legitimate.

America Is Watching the Rise of a Dual State (theatlantic.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43454004