The House-passed version of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” could protect him and his administration from violations of court orders.
The 1,000-page bill includes a provision to curb the power of federal judges to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating court orders. This language is included after various presidential executive orders have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal court judges.
“We think what these federal judges are doing is tantamount to a national crisis,” one GOP senior aide told the Washington Examiner.
The legislation calls for courts to enforce a rule requiring the payment of a bond before a federal judge can issue an injunction to stop the administration. Judges often refrain from using these bonds, including if plaintiffs don’t have the resources to pay, and can choose to set the bond at zero. Under the bill that passed the House, a judge’s injunction would not have teeth without the bond payment.
The provision is as stated: “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”
“The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) said in a hearing about the bill. “What’s typically happened in these cases is he’s just waiving it. Nobody’s putting it up. And they’re getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern.”
The provision will apply retroactively to court orders, if it makes it past the Senate and is signed into law, meaning that every federal court injunction that waived the security requirement would be made unenforceable. This includes some of the cases in which federal judges have deliberated whether to hold the administration accountable over its handling of migrant deportations.
The provision in the bill is one of many attempts since Trump has taken office to curb the power of lower court judges. Last month, Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) bill to block district courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions passed the House. Another attempt came from Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX), who introduced articles of impeachment against District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. Boasberg has threatened contempt proceedings over the order.
GOP EXPLORES OPTIONS FOR TRUMP’S DEMAND TO IMPEACH JUDGES
As Trump won reelection on a campaign of mass deportations, he has employed rare tools to speed up deportations, including declaring a border emergency and employing the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to fast-track the removal of those deemed a threat. His methods have been repeatedly challenged in court, and judges have stopped removal proceedings and even considered contempt of court filings against the administration.
Republicans argue that federal judges are disproportionately targeting the president to minimize his power, and requiring plaintiffs to pay bonds would cut down on frivolous lawsuits against the administration. Meanwhile, Democrats argue that his administration’s policies are illegal and therefore judges are merely enforcing the law.
“This provision is retroactive and tailored to help Donald Trump alone,” House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told the Washington Examiner. “If enacted, all existing court orders where no bond was required would become unenforceable by the federal courts — rendering almost all the injunctions currently pending against the Trump administration totally void.”
Raskin said the provision tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would allow Trump officials to ignore judges’ rulings.
“Their plan is plainly unconstitutional,” Raskin continued. “Contempt is an inherent authority of the judicial branch, and judges don’t need Donald Trump’s approval to exercise that authority.”
While Democratic leadership has focused its attention on how the bill will affect Medicaid coverage and food assistance benefits, others have homed in on this particular measure because the courts have been the one consistent venue to check Trump’s agenda, with Democrats out of power in Congress.
“Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored,” University of California, Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in an op-ed. “This is an effort by the Trump administration to negate one of the few checks that exist on its powers.”
CONGRESSIONAL STOCK TRADING BAN FOSTERS RARE BIPARTISANSHIP
The House passed Trump’s megabill last week through a budget process called reconciliation. The bill is headed to the Senate, where it is expected to hit some major hurdles, as fiscal hawks want changes and other GOP senators have concerns about cuts to Medicaid.
It is not clear whether this provision complies with the Senate’s rules used to pass a reconciliation bill. The so-called Byrd Rule allows bills to bypass the filibuster and pass with only a simple majority in the Senate, but it requires that all provisions have a direct impact on federal revenues.