All arrests end with an appearance before a judge. If it’s obvious baloney, the judge will dismiss.

There is no need for judges to target anyone yet, because the Trump admin hasn’t been found in contempt.

Again, judges are used to threats and I don’t think they would find “domestic drone strike” to be a particularly credible response to “pay your workers or I’ll write the check myself”.

Because that’s what we’re talking about here: paying people. If you expect judges to completely reverse what Trump is doing, you’re going to be disappointed. They can’t do it.

And yes, part of the legal process is that lawyers are allowed to delay and judges have to put up with it. But they aren’t allowed to openly defy the judge. And so far, no Trump lawyer has done so.

Trump can’t pardon employees who are found in contempt of court. Trump might not lose sleep, but the employees will. Most employees, even Trump supporters, won’t take an assignment that will lead to losing their life savings.

Courts can stop some (not all) of what he is doing now. Which I think is what they are doing.

I don’t think Trump is going to turn the military loose against Americans, if that’s what you imagine as “push comes to shove”. That would be suicidal, for Trump. Especially because of his purges. The people in government who actually get things done had no loyalty to the president, and now they have no loyalty to their departmental leadership. Trump just made it far more likely that the people he needs will sit on their hands when he needs them most.

I mean, in one of the current Trump lawsuits the DoJ is literally pleading that their department is so understaffed and disrupted that they will all have to work overtime to meet a judge’s demands. The judge basically laughed in their face and said if the DoJ can’t get it together then they deserve to lose. Does that sound like a powerful DoJ that we should fear?

can a judge freeze a tank

Is Trump personally driving that tank?

Once you order the military to break the law, all bets are off. Things aren’t necessarily going to go your way, especially if you’re suddenly a very unpopular leader. I think a randomly chosen soldier would be equally likely to target the White House than another American citizen with that tank.

If the judicial branch wanted to stop him

The judicial system normally acts very slowly. They are the most deliberative branch of government. But they can move much faster when they are being defied.

And frankly it wasn’t their job to “stop” Trump. That was the job of voters, and we failed.

He also received an $83 million judgment, which he already paid. And a $400 million fine, which he will pay.

Also, keep in mind that Trump cannot act alone. Even if he could shrug off a million dollar fine, his employees cannot. And judges will target his employees, until nobody is willing to break the law for him.

The only people who can remove Trump from office are the legislative branch

That’s true.

We’re not talking about removing him from office, though. We are talking about judicial remedies, which usually involve paying restitution to people who have been wronged. And getting those people paid is not as difficult as you imagine.

He could just cut federal funding to any state that causes too much of a ruckus.

Governors might care if you cut federal funding to their states.

But judges don’t care. And judges don’t work for the governor.

a million levers to pull (pulling funding, national emergencies, the insurrection act, targeted coercion

There’s a reason why judges tend to consider themselves as untouchable. None of this would have any effect on them.

Judges sentence mafia captains and drug kingpins to jail, people for whom extortion and violent retribution are second nature. Why do you think they would suddenly be scared off by Trump’s crew of incompetent doofuses?

injunctions be ignored in perpetuity

No, they can’t. Nobody has an infinite bank account.

The US has checking accounts just like everyone else. That’s how they write paychecks.

And if a bank can draw from the US account when presented with a federal employee’s paycheck, it can do the same when presented with a court order.

Jackson probably never said that.

In any case, he wasn’t defying the court. He was passing the buck.

This case was between Samuel Worcester and the state of Georgia, and the SCOTUS ordered the state of Georgia to release Worcester. Jackson was not involved and didn’t want to be involved (hence the snarky “let THEM enforce it”, ie “keep me out of this”).

However, the SCOTUS never asked for Jackson’s help and ultimately didn’t need it.

would a state judge specifically need to issue the warrant?

For federal crimes, a federal judge would issue the warrant. But not a hand-picked federal judge, they would be randomly chosen from within the jurisdiction.

Even if a Trump-appointed judge were randomly chosen, I doubt they would go along with a bogus warrant against another judge. For one thing, judges (like cops) protect their own. For another, the warrant would be appealed and it’s quite unlikely that every judge in the line of appeal would play along.

stop the feds from finding a hard-drive full of CP in the judges office

That’s not the slam-dunk you seem to think. First, local PD would be present during the search and notice that a hard drive appeared out of nowhere. Next, the forensics team would notice that the only fingerprints on the drive belonged to federal agents. Finally, the judge’s password-protected computer would have no record of interfacing with that drive. All in all, those charges would likely be dismissed.

A state judge could pretty fairly label Trump an outlaw today, giving judicial sanction for violent arrest.

Trump might be an “outlaw” because he is not following the law, but that is not the same as a “criminal” (someone who has specifically violated the criminal code). And only criminals can be arrested.

The consequence for breaking the law is often not arrest, but a lawsuit. And Trump is being sued all over the place.

That doesn’t put a bunch of state police on par with Trump engaging the national guard.

Trump isn’t going to successfully engage the national guard against the state police. For one thing, the national guard is paid by the governor’s office. What is Trump offering them?

If the governor tells the guard “Any guardsman who interferes with state police won’t get paid and/or will be demoted”, then nobody will interfere.

State judges are elected or appointed by governors.

Judges aren’t healthcare CEOs: they are accustomed to being targeted by criminals, they have armed security details, and they have the chief of police on speed-dial.

The federal government might have “plausible deniability” but the perps are still going to be arrested and tried. “Plausible deniability” just means the government will abandon them.

You can’t arrest someone for treason without a warrant. And warrants are signed by judges.

The rest of your hypothetical describes kidnapping and arson. Kidnapping and arson are state crimes even if the perp is a federal employee. The brownshirts would be arrested by state/local police (who vastly outnumber federal agents btw) and tried in state courts.

Jails are administered by judges. Put a judge in jail illegally, and another judge will immediately release them.

I answered this elsewhere, but the upshot is that banks treat court orders like checks drawn from your account. Once they are signed, there isn’t any good way to stop the funds from being withdrawn.

THEY is the judge.

Suppose you sued Bob, and Bob was dumb enough to openly defy the judge. The judge could write a court order that says “Bob owes Melatonin $1000” or “Bob owes the court $1000”.

For all practical purposes, that order works the same as a check signed by Bob. If it’s written to you, then you and your lawyer can take it to the bank. The bank teller will give you $1000 and deduct $1000 from Bob’s account. It doesn’t matter what Bob says or what Bob’s employees say. The bank teller doesn’t work for Bob.

The same is true if “Bob” is a DoJ lawyer or even the DoJ itself.

Judges can drain bank accounts of those who don’t respect rule of law. That’s kind of the point of draining their bank account.

That’s not going to work either. It’s a bad idea to openly defy judges, because they can easily drain your bank account.

You’ll note that even now, Trump lawyers claim they are doing their best to comply with court orders.

Reminder to all that despite its name the FEC does not control elections. Elections are controlled by the states.

The FEC enforces campaign spending laws, but as we’ve all seen even lawbreakers can be elected president.