General Discussion

I am an attorney, and not only am I an attorney I taught law for nearly 10 years.. Mere talk, such as she was doing in the advertisement, is not actively defying a judge's order. Individuals do not lose their right to speak solely because they are members of the government.

I can't find any report that Noem was even made aware of the decision to allow the planes to continue, let alone that she ordered them to continue. None of the reports I have seen mention her involvement in that decision. Stating, "to some effect that 'my agency will not do that'" is not the same as acting in violation of an order - absent her knowing participation in authorizing the flights to continue. The judge hasn't even determined, last time I checked, that the attorneys involved even conveyed the judge's order to anyone in the administration with the authority to stop the planes. If the DOJ did not relay the judge's decision to the administration, it is the attorneys who are likely to be in contempt.

Contempt of court is not generally a criminal matter. It is ordinarily a civil matter. Even if it was criminal contempt in this case, mere intent alone is not a crime - and chatter about intending to defy an order is not the same as actually defying it until that chatter is acted on. Whether it can be used as evidence is a different question - but there isn't a single crime which consists solely of intent. All require both a mental state and actions.

Common sense and the law do not always reach the same conclusions