Can Biden ignore the courts? Some float defiance on abortion pill ruling. Experts say it's an explosive idea.

WASHINGTON – A handful of lawmakers urging President Joe Biden to defy a court ruling that suspends approval of mifepristone are lighting the fuse on an explosive fight over the separation of powers that some experts warn could have consequences far beyond the nation's roiling debate over abortion.

Two Democrats and a Republican have in recent days called on Biden to "ignore" a sweeping ruling from a federal judge in Texas that would halt Food and Drug Administration approval of a common abortion pill. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., brushed off the decision as a "power-grab" and suggested Biden could dismiss it.

Even though the White House quickly batted down the advice, the idea had the potential to put another dent in the guardrails that separate the federal judiciary from politics at a time when polls show faith in the courts has ebbed. And it opens the door for future lawmakers of either party to question the legitimacy of a court's decision they dislike.

Rulings: Dueling federal rulings plunge future of abortion pill into legal uncertainty

Reaction: AOC says Biden White House should ignore mifepristone ruling 

Review: Mifepristone rulings set up first post-Roe abortion case at Supreme Court

"This is a race to the bottom," said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. "Once politicians start ignoring judges rather than taking appeals, the judiciary loses its power very quickly."

How Ocasio-Cortez, other critics reacted to abortion pill ruling

• Ocasio-Cortez told CNN on Friday the decision was an "egregious" overreach and said she believed Biden "should ignore this ruling." Days later, speaking on CNN again, the Democrat at times seemed to double down and at other times seemed to walk back into a more nuanced argument about the "enforcement discretion" some legal experts say the administration could exercise without defying the court.

• Ocasio-Cortez cited an earlier statement from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who said he believes the administration "has the authority to ignore this ruling." Wyden referred to a speech he delivered in February suggesting Biden could ignore the ruling "at least until there's a final ruling on the underlying matter by the Supreme Court."

• A South Carolina Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace, joined with Democrats on Monday, telling CNN that she agreed with "ignoring it at this point."

What's the danger in "ignoring" the court's mifepristone decision?

Ignoring the ruling from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on mifepristone or suggesting it should be ignored could open the gate for the executive and legislative branches to write off all sorts of decisions they oppose in the future, experts said.

"The danger is you'll end up with a tit-for-tat game," said Timothy Johnson, a professor of political science and law at the University of Minnesota. "These political decisions that you make in the moment can always come back to bite you."

White House: Biden will fight, not ignore, abortion pill ruling suspending mifepristone

Transgender: Supreme Court sides with 12-year-old transgender girl fighting West Virginia's sports ban

Some on the left have made a more nuanced argument about what they mean by "ignoring" the lower court. Although Kacsmaryk's decision suspends FDA approval of mifepristone, it does not require the FDA to enforce violations. To put that concept in another context: Congress has outlawed marijuana possession, but the federal government looks the other way as many states legalize recreational pot.

For now, the White House is steering clear of such talk – while slamming the ruling.

"My thoughts are: It’s completely out of bounds what the judge did," Biden said Tuesday before departing for Ireland. But a day earlier, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that the administration would "always follow the law, always."

The Biden administration on Monday appealed Kacsmaryk's decision and the Louisiana-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is expected to weigh in later this week. Kacsmaryk placed a hold on his own ruling until Friday.

Could Biden ignore the federal courts? Ask President Andrew Jackson.

There have been moments in the nation's history when state and federal officials have attempted to ignore Supreme Court decisions. Those attempts have generally turned out far better for federal courts than for the politicians involved.

When Chief Justice John Marshall crafted a majority opinion in 1832 invalidating a Georgia law that required non-Native Americans to have a license to live within the territory of the Cherokee nation, President Andrew Jackson was famously – and, probably, inaccurately – quoted as asserting that, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Neither Jackson nor Georgia initially enforced the court's ruling, which led to the forced removal of the Cherokee people from their homeland.

The actual dispute in the case was later caught up in and resolved by another crisis.

Brown: Supreme Court affirmative action cases spark heated debate over meaning of Brown v. Board

Overturn: The Supreme Court has overruled itself on segregation, saluting the flag and abortion

In 1954, the Supreme Court held segregation had no place in public schools. But it took years – and a showdown between President Dwight Eisenhower and the school board of Little Rock, Arkansas – before the command was enforced. Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus used the state National Guard to block Black students from enrolling.

"Imagine if President Eisenhower was a whole lot more conservative and not as forward thinking as he was on civil rights issues," Johnson said. "If you have a president different than Eisenhower who refuses to send in troops and request National Guard help...then the Civil Rights movement would not have moved as quickly."

Contributing: Maureen Groppe 

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Abortion pill: Why Biden won't 'ignore' the courts on mifepristone