14

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also known as "H.R.1" passed the House of Representatives yesterday. Some online opponents have mentioned that it prohibits the courts from holding Trump and other officials in contempt of court for ignoring court orders. This is the only reference I was able to find in an otherwise large and complicated bill.

SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION OF FUNDS.

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.

I think I understand it to mean that it doesn't prohibit holding somebody in contempt, but it prohibits spending any money to do it. The part I don't understand is

if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued

The referenced rule includes the statement

The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

It seems as if this section is intended to do exactly what its opponents say, namely completely neuter any authority the courts have to hold government officials to the rule of law.

Reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65 and https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
19

The rule says this:

(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

The section in the bill basically suggests that if an injunction or TRO is issued and violated, a contempt order cannot be enforced unless the injunction or the TRO were issued by the request of the US government, or a security was given.

The security to compensate for the costs associated with the TRO/injunction may be quite substantial (depending on what the government can argue the damage would be). So the intent of the law is to deter people who are not rich enough to seek injunctions and TROs against the Federal government, or at the very least to deter them from seeking contempt rulings against the Federal government if such orders are issued and the government ignores them.

So yes, unsurprisingly, it says exactly what people claim it says.

Improve this answer
12
  • 4
    Tying it to the security deposit is presumably how they were able to justify putting it in a budget bill. It's not about protecting POTUS, it's just about $$. Commented May 23, 2025 at 18:22
  • 11
    No, it's in the budget bill because it limits the ability to use appropriated funds. It's very much about protecting POTUS (or, rather, his delegates since we've already established that the POTUS himself is immune from any adverse action). Commented May 23, 2025 at 18:49
  • 11
    @Barmar As far as I'm aware, Congress is under no obligation to "stick to the topic" when drafting legislation. There may be political reasons to do so, but they don't need to justify what goes into the text. Commented May 24, 2025 at 0:17
  • 9
    @Cadence: "Congress is under no obligation to "stick to the topic" when drafting legislation." However, they must stick to budget matters in a reconciliation bill, in order to have it bypass the filibuster in the Senate. Commented May 24, 2025 at 15:56
  • 2
    @Barmar read the Sec. 70302 again Commented May 24, 2025 at 17:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.