Maps
Magazine

WORLD NEWS

Trump-Backed Bill Includes Provision That Could Weaken Court Contempt Powers
A Trump-backed bill passed by the House could limit courts from enforcing contempt if plaintiffs didn’t post a bond—critics warn it weakens judicial authority.
ND
by News Desk
2025-05-30
Trump-Backed Bill Includes Provision That Could Weaken Court Contempt Powers

A massive tax-and-spending bill backed by former President Donald Trump and passed by the House includes a controversial provision that could severely limit the ability of federal courts—including the Supreme Court—to enforce contempt orders against the government.

The one-sentence provision, buried within the 1,100-page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, states that:

“No court of the United States may 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.”

The clause applies retroactively, potentially impacting dozens of ongoing and past legal disputes where courts had issued injunctions without requiring plaintiffs to post monetary bonds—standard practice in cases involving the government.

⚖️ What It Means

Legal experts say this would make it nearly impossible for courts to hold government agencies in contempt when they disobey court orders unless a bond was posted at the outset of litigation. In most public interest cases—civil rights, immigration, environmental protections—bonds are not required due to the plaintiffs’ limited resources and the public nature of the suits.

“This provision would neutralize valid injunctions and leave courts powerless to act in the face of open defiance,” wrote 21 House Democrats in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson dated May 20, urging the removal of the clause.

The bill passed the House on May 22 by a single vote, with no support from Democrats. It now heads to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority, though some GOP lawmakers have already signaled intent to amend the legislation.

🏛️ Critics Sound the Alarm

Eric Kashdan, legal counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, warned that the provision creates a loophole for government defiance, stating, “You know what the government is going to do in the meantime? It’s free to ignore those orders.”

Although judges could technically comply by reopening cases to impose nominal bonds, Kashdan said this would be time-consuming and burdensome, effectively delaying justice.

The Trump administration had previously directed agencies to request bonds in lawsuits seeking injunctions, claiming it would deter “frivolous litigation.”

🚫 Judicial Power at Stake

Judges have not yet issued contempt orders against federal agencies in recent years, but multiple courts have warned the Trump administration about non-compliance with rulings.

In one notable case, two small toy companies seeking relief from Trump-era tariffs were told by the government to post a high bond, which would have made the lawsuit financially unviable. The judge ultimately set the bond at $100, ruling in the companies’ favor.

Judicial contempt powers—ranging from fines to imprisonment—are a cornerstone of enforcing court orders. Without them, critics say courts would lose their authority to compel compliance from the executive branch.

This is not the first time Trump has clashed with the judiciary. In 2022, a New York judge held him in contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena during a civil investigation, fining him $10,000 per day until he paid $110,000 and complied.

The latest provision has raised concerns that Trump and his allies are attempting to undermine judicial independence ahead of the 2026 elections.
Tagged:

congress

ContemptOfCourt

TrumpBill

JudicialPower
Share News: