(AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)
House Republicans added a provision to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has raised eyebrows among political observers and reporters in recent days. While much of the discussion around the sweeping tax and spending bill has focused on how it impacts the deficit, one paragraph has largely gone unnoticed – except by those who follow politics with a magnifying glass.
USA Today columnist Chris Brennana former political reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirerhighlighted the alarming paragraph over the weekend.
“One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America’s budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond,” Brennan wrote.
The provision of the bill reads: “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.”
Brennan went on to explain that the real-world impact of the paragraph buried deep in the middle of the massive bill could mean that Americans without financial means won’t be able to challenge the Trump administration in court – and those who do have the means will have to pay more.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, also wrote about the provision in an article for Just Security titled, “A Terrible Idea.”
Chemerinsky argued that the paragraph will also kneecap federal courts in enforcing their rulings by gutting their ability to hold Trump administration officials in contempt. “A provision in the proposed spending bill would restrict the authority of federal courts to hold government officials in contempt when they violate court orders. Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored,” Chemerinsky wrote, adding:
There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power.
Chemerinsky spoke to Brennan for his column and warned that the implications of the provision becoming law could also retroactively invalidate court rulings. “The greatest impact will be in preventing enforcement of all existing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions if a bond has not been posted — and rarely were there bonds required,” he warned, adding:
I think it has not received much attention because it is a provision of a large budget bill and because the implications are not obvious, but it will make most existing court orders unenforceable.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is now being considered in the Senate, where the GOP leadership has promised changes to the bill as several senators have expressed frustration with the amount of money it spends.
%20Investors%20with%20Substantial%20Losses%20Have%20Opportunity%20to%20Lead%20Investor%20Class%20Action%20Lawsuit){kind=link}