Since Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill Act” narrowly passed the House of Representatives the Thursday before Memorial Day Weekend, new revelations have constantly come to light about well-hidden provisions within the bill that Trump’s GOP have tried to sneak within the 1,100-page document. One such provision recently discovered is a one-sentence line that would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders.
The unearthed provision would prevent federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiffs have posted a monetary bond, which rarely happens in cases against the government.
“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 provision says. It applies retroactively.
“Security” refers to monetary bonds that can be used in private litigation when one party seeks to ask a judge to issue an injunction blocking the actions of another party, such as a company trying to prevent a rival from selling a product. If an injunction is later reversed, the bond helps cover the defendant’s losses.
The provision follows a White House memo in March which directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post a bond when seeking an injunction against an agency policy. The Trump administration said the measure would deter frivolous lawsuits.
Judges often don’t require bonds in cases against the government. In a recent ongoing case by two small toymakers, Learning Resources and hand2mind, suing the Trump administration because of tariffs, the plaintiffs said the bond that had been requested by the government would be more costly than tariffs and would nullify the benefit of an injunction. The judge on Thursday, May 29, set the bond at $100 and blocked the tariffs against the two companies.
Federal courts have been one of the major checks against the Trump administration during his second term, having blocked numerous policies the White House has produced through Executive Order. As bonds are not required for most of the cases being brought up to courts, if the House Bill provision becomes law, judges would lose substantial power by being unable to enforce contempt orders, which are utilized to bring parties into compliance.
Twenty-one Democrats from the House wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson on May 20, urging him to strike the provision from the bill. “This provision would neutralize valid injunctions and leave courts powerless to act in the face of open defiance,” the letter states.
Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, reasoned that judges could comply with the provision by setting bonds at a nominal amount and old cases could be reopened, but he tempered that conclusion with it being a time-consuming and burdensome workaround.
“You know what the government is going to do in the meantime?” said Kashdan, whose organization has sued the Trump administration over a voting policy. “It’s free to ignore those orders.”Trevor Potter, CLC president and former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, released the following statement in response to the bill:
“The House is trying to use budget reconciliation as a Trojan horse to enact President Trump’s agenda across our government while avoiding the Senate filibuster rules — in doing so, they are poised to severely undermine our democracy.
“In one provision, Congress aims to ban the enforcement of state or local laws regulating artificial intelligence (AI) — even those designed to stop election manipulation. More than 20 states have already created such laws after seeing that bad actors can use AI to create fake content that could mislead voters or discourage electoral participation. Congress should be following the example set by these states. We need federal laws that address the challenges AI can create for our democracy, rather than setting voters up to face a deluge of false information and denying their right to make informed decisions at the ballot box.
“In another provision, Congress aims to shield the Trump administration, and any government actor, from accountability when they break the law. This outrageous change would undermine the rule of law and allow government officials, including the president, to escape the possibility of being held in contempt of court if they violate court orders. The provision would even apply to court orders and injunctions issued before this law takes effect. In essence, the provision could in a single stroke render thousands of prior orders across the country unenforceable via contempt proceedings. The rule of law in our country would be dangerously undermined if this provision becomes law.
“CLC urges the House to remove these harmful provisions from its legislation. If they remain in place, we urge every lawmaker to vote NO and defeat this budget reconciliation package to protect our democracy.”