Republican Bill Would Limit Judges' Contempt Power

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Republican Bill Would Limit Judges’ Contempt Power

Democrats have argued that House Republicans’ measure would rob courts of their power by stripping away any consequences for officials who ignore judges’ rulings.


The Capitol in Washington. Kenny Holston/The New York Times

By Michael Gold
Reporting from the Capitol
May 22, 2025

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.

{snip}

Democrats have argued that House Republicans’ measure would rob courts of their power by stripping away any consequences for officials who ignore judges’ rulings. They also noted that the measure would effectively shield the Trump administration from constitutional challenges by making it prohibitively expensive to sue. … “We’ve never said to American citizens and constituents that in order to vindicate their rights in federal court, they’re going to be required to provide a security when their constitutional rights have been violated by their government,” Representative Joe Neguse, Democrat of Colorado, said.

Michael Gold covers Congress for The Times, with a focus on immigration policy and congressional oversight.

[riversedge]

1. K and R

[no_hypocrisy]

2. That provision should be stripped as it has nothing to do with

budgets, spending, tax cuts, etc.

It belongs in a separate bill, where hopefully, it would require a 60-vote majority in the Senate to avoid a filibuster.