How many court rulings has Joe Biden administration not complied with since 2021?

1. What the record in these sources actually shows: a series of contested rulings, not a single tabulation

The articles and trackers in the provided results describe multiple court decisions that constrained or rebuked administration actions—Judge Kacsmaryk’s August 2021 judgment on MPP ordering reinstatement (later reversed by the Supreme Court), the Fifth Circuit and district‑court injunctions limiting how officials may contact social platforms, and lower‑court injunctions against parts of vaccine‑mandate enforcement—but none present a consolidated count of “uncomplyings” by the administration ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Example — Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP): judicial orders, appeals, reversal

Texas and Missouri sued after the administration moved to end MPP; a district court ordered reinstatement in August 2021 and a Fifth Circuit affirmed, producing a period when the government re‑implemented MPP — but the Supreme Court ultimately held in June 2022 that the termination did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, reversing the lower courts’ practical effect ^{[1] [6] [7]}. The sequence shows litigation producing conflicting orders and an ultimate Supreme Court resolution rather than a simple finding of executive defiance ^{[1] [6]}.

3. Example — Social‑media contact: injunctions and appellate rebukes

A federal judge enjoined multiple Biden officials from contacting social platforms about posts protected by the First Amendment; the Fifth Circuit later upheld limits and described the administration’s interactions as likely coercive, prompting the administration to warn that such constraints would impede efforts on public‑health and national‑security threats ^{[2] [4] [5]}. Coverage frames this as a concrete judicial restriction on executive conduct, with debate over whether routine agency communications were unlawfully coercive ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Example — Vaccine mandates: stays, enforcement discretion, and appeals

Courts issued injunctions and stays around OSHA and CMS vaccine and testing rules; a Sixth Circuit ruling temporarily reinstated an OSHA mandate while other courts had enjoined it, and the Labor Department announced enforcement discretion timelines to account for legal uncertainty ^{[8] [3]}. Media reporting treats these as litigation outcomes and administrative responses, not as unambiguous noncompliance by the White House ^{[8] [3]}.

5. Why tallying “noncompliance” is legally and journalistically fraught

The sources show litigation that produces injunctions, stays, reversals and appeals: a single administrative action can be enjoined in one court, stayed by an appellate court, and affirmed or reversed by the Supreme Court later ^{[1] [3] [6]}. That procedural back‑and‑forth means “noncompliance” can reflect lawful appeals, partial obedience under a stay, or ultimate reversal—circumstances that reporting treats as legal contestation rather than a plain count of disobedience ^{[1] [8] [6]}.

6. Competing narratives and political framing in the sources

Some actors characterize these rulings as evidence Biden “flouted” courts or sought to circumvent judicial limits (a Senate Judiciary Committee press piece cited partisan claims), while other sources portray the administration as using appeals, reevaluation memos, or enforcement discretion when courts intervened ^{[9] [1] [8]}. Reporting from outlets ranging across the ideological spectrum documents the same cases but emphasizes either alleged executive overreach or legitimate legal defense and policy continuation ^{[9] [10] [5]}.

7. What’s missing from the available reporting

Available sources do not provide a complete, verifiable numeric tally of every court ruling the administration “did not comply with” since 2021; they document notable cases and procedural sequences but stop short of compiling an authoritative list or standard for what “noncompliance” would include ^{[1] [2] [3]}. For a defensible count, one would need a defined methodology (which orders to include, whether stays/appeals count) and a comprehensive review of district, circuit, and Supreme Court dockets—not present in the supplied material.

Bottom line: the sources document multiple high‑profile instances where courts limited or reversed administration actions and where the administration responded by reimplementing, appealing, or invoking enforcement discretion, but they do not support a single, sourced numeric answer to “how many” court rulings the Biden administration has not complied with since 2021 ^{[1] [2] [3]}.