Gene claims here
that SCOTUS will take "personal jurisdiction" in the event the lower courts behave as I claim they will. I'm deeply skeptical of that. SCOTUS has never, to my knowledge, done that, even during the civil rights movement (there, the U.S. Marshals got involved at the request of the Attorney General, and not, it seems, the Supreme Court). At most, they ruled on the merits of the cases before them in the event the lower courts kept ignoring their GVRs, but I'm presuming here that they will rule on the merits and the lower courts will ignore the resulting precedent
. Judicial rebellion of that scale has never happened before, but I believe it will happen here, precisely because of the nature of the right involved.
During the civil rights movement, the executive branch supported, rather than opposing, the Supreme Court's decisions. That is most assuredly not going to happen here until we get a non-Democrat President, which won't happen for a minimum of 4 years from now. The U.S. Marshals will do the bidding of the Supreme Court if the Court tells them to intervene, but we will not
get any support from the President or the Attorney General or anyone they command. Aside from the Supreme Court and those they directly command, we're on our own
discusses the issue of the lower courts ignoring the Supreme Court. It's lacking citations, but shows that lower courts can and do
ignore the Supreme Court when they really want to, and that doing so yields no consequences to them whatsoever.