The president would almost certainly not want to take responsibility for the resulting economic implosion, and would order the executive to ignore the court ruling. Then it comes down to a mix of loyalties and individuals' beliefs around what would cause the least damage.

It's far more likely that a ruling like that would be the end of the court's power.

That's not accurate:

Power in the US government is of course separated between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and each has checks and balances on the other two.

One check the executive has on the judicial is to ignore its rulings. The executive can't do it all the time, obviously, and afaik the US also generally embraces 'judicial supremacy', the idea that the judicial branch generally gets the last word. Also, I don't recall the judiciary sanctioning indiviuals in the executive branch, but I could be wrong. I would guess they've never sanctioned a president.

Perhaps the most famous use of this power was in Worcester v. Georgia; when his favored side lost the case, President Andrew Jackson, reputedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." (Inspiring rhetoric, but it led eventually to Native Americans having their land stolen and many being marched to their deaths.)

Every time someone in the executive has been held in contempt of court in relation to (but usually exceeding) their official duties, the judiciary sanctioned individuals in the executive branch.