Republican Bill Would Limit Judges' Contempt Power

[In It to Win It]

NYT (Archived)

The sprawling domestic policy bill Republicans pushed through the House on Thursday would limit the power of federal judges to hold people in contempt, potentially shielding President Trump and members of his administration from the consequences of violating court orders.

Republicans tucked the provision into the tax and spending cut bill at a time when they have moved aggressively to curb the power of federal courts to issue injunctions blocking Mr. Trump’s executive actions. It comes as federal judges have opened inquiries about whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating their orders in cases related to its aggressive deportation efforts.

It is not clear whether the provision can survive under special procedures Republicans are using to push the legislation through Congress on a simple majority vote. Such bills must comply with strict rules that require that all of their components have a direct effect on federal revenues.

But by including it, Republicans were seeking to use their major policy bill to weaken federal judges. Under the rules that govern civil lawsuits in the federal courts, federal judges are supposed to order a bond from a person seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction.

The amount is supposed to be set at what “the court considers proper” to cover any costs that might be suffered if that injunction is later found to have been incorrectly issued. But federal judges have wide discretion to set their bonds, and often refrain from doing so.

[pandr32]

1. We need to yell this from the rooftops.

Our press should be covering this, but sadly they have been brought in line with this regime.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. If passed, it would be overturned by the courts

Separation of Powers and equal protection issues for starters.

[TnDem]

3. I am not sure about that

The legislature is free to make laws the US Supreme Court has to abide by if constitutional.... The executive branch cannot.

If congress can't pass laws in regards to the judicial branch, then who does?

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Congress can only pass laws pertaining to the funding and structure of the courts

Not how the courts conduct business (other than the text of the laws they are enforcing).

The clause in question violates, at the very least, the constitutional issues of separation of powers and equal protection.

For those reasons, I believe SCOTUS would overturn the law in a 7-2 ruling.