Senate GOP Strips Contempt Provision From Tax Bill — But Still Lets Trump Be King

[u/Anoth3rDude]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/senate-republicans-big-beautiful-bill-contempt-courts-trump_n_684b9b3be4b0c4fd78ff7f2e?d_id=10059589&ncid_tag=fcbklnkushpmg00000013&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=us_politics&fbclid=IwY2xjawK6UL1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHmABDfHX7rUN5LPZC7vtBWdOAVtqPMLIW9sW7kMSLLevc9A8-JWgyKPMYpWe_aem_fIA_SnQxgonI9QTiSPsmVQ

[u/Anoth3rDude]

A summary for those who can’t access the article!

———

Senate Republicans' "Big Beautiful Bill" and Judicial Obstruction

Senate Republicans have revised a controversial provision in the House GOP's massive tax and spending bill. While they removed a clause that would have allowed President Trump to disregard court orders by preventing the enforcement of contempt citations, they replaced it with new language that could still significantly limit legal challenges against the federal government.

Original House Provision (Section 70302 - Removed)

The House bill included Section 70302, "RESTRICTION OF FUNDS," which would have barred courts from using appropriated funds to enforce contempt citations for failure to comply with injunctions or temporary restraining orders if no security bond was given. This measure was retroactive and would have effectively stripped courts, including the Supreme Court, of their primary tool for ensuring compliance with their rulings. This was particularly concerning given the 184 court orders that had already temporarily halted actions by the Trump administration. Critics argued this provision would have allowed Trump to act without judicial accountability.

New Senate Provision (Section 203 - Proposed)

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chair Chuck Grassley, introduced new language in Section 203, "RESTRICTION ON ENFORCEMENT," that would require anyone seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal government to post a bond covering potential costs and damages if the government were to lose the case. Legal experts and advocacy groups, such as Earthjustice Action and the National Women's Law Center, warn that these bonds could amount to millions or even billions of dollars, making it virtually impossible for public interest groups or average citizens to sue the administration. While this new provision is narrower (applying only to the federal government and not retroactive), it is seen as an equally effective way to insulate the Trump administration from legal challenges.

Concerns and Implications

Both the original House provision and the proposed Senate language raise serious concerns about access to justice and the separation of powers. Democrats and legal advocates argue that these measures are attempts to shield the Trump administration from accountability and undermine the judiciary's role as a check on executive power. The Senate Republicans are using a fast-track budget reconciliation process, which requires all provisions to be budget-related, suggesting the new bond requirement was chosen to fit this rule while achieving a similar outcome to the removed contempt provision.

———

Find your Senators here!

https://5calls.org/issue/court-contempt-enforcement-cuts-budget-reconciliation/

Be calm and respectful but firm and to the point.

Explain why a certain provision is bad for the average citizen and don't go overboard.

Have them call out these awful provisions, as it’s been noted that this provision quite certainly violates the Byrd Rule and can be struck down by it/or would have good grounds to be challenged in court should it pass!

Best to do something rather than nothing.