„Versteckte“ Bestimmung in Trumps großem Gesetzentwurf könnte den US -Obersten Gerichtshof entwaffnen
https://www.newsweek.com/hidden-provision-trump-bill-court-2075769
„Versteckte“ Bestimmung in Trumps großem Gesetzentwurf könnte den US -Obersten Gerichtshof entwaffnen
https://www.newsweek.com/hidden-provision-trump-bill-court-2075769
39 Kommentare
From Article:
A provision „hidden“ in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.
„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,“ the provision in the bill, which is more than 1,000 pages long, says.
Why It Matters
The provision would prohibit courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders—the main types of rulings that have been used to rein in President Donald Trump’s administration—unless the plaintiffs have paid a bond, something that rarely happens when someone sues the government.
What To Know
If enacted, it would be a „stunning“ restriction on the power of federal courts, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, wrote in an article for Just Security.
„The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts,“ he wrote. „Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.“
Chemerinsky wrote that federal courts rarely require a bond to be posted by „those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions“ as those seeking such orders „do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review.“
Representative Joe Neguse, a Colorado Democrat, said in an interview that the provision was added because the Trump administration is „losing in virtually every court in the land.“
District Judge James E. Boasberg said he will initiate hearings and may refer the matter for prosecution if the administration does not act to remedy the violation. The administration has also removed immigrants against court orders in other cases.
The provision in the House bill „would make the court orders in these cases completely unenforceable,“ according to Chemerinsky.
„Indeed, the bill is stunning in its scope. It would apply to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued.“
What’s Next
The House approved the bill in a 215-214 vote early Thursday. It now heads to the Senate, where it could face revisions before a final vote.
———
OP Here:
This Provision must be removed or defanged during Committee meetings or struck down by the Byrd Rule which can remove Non-Budgetary Inclusions that don’t directly tie into Budgetary Matters.
A single Senator can invoke it, letting the Parliamentarian review and then recommend having it be removed.
An upheld Byrd Rule can only be struck down by a 60 vote majority.
Remind your Senators of the Danger and spread the word any and everywhere you can!
The more voices covering this, the better!
Also legal experts have pointed out that it can be declared by the courts as unconstitutional for a variety of reasons but you should still do all that you can for now.
———
I’m not going to respond to every reply so unless it’s a genuine question then it’s likely not gonna get a response.
The Supreme Court could also strike the law down, because that is literally their job. Also, the Supreme Court could take a play out of the Trump Adminsitration and just do whatever it wants because who is going to stop them?
Should cross post this is r/SCOTUS and r/law
MAGA is very quickly chiping away the „checks and balances“ of the Constitution.
The end game is creating an all powerful Executive branch that answers to no one.
At what point should we stop viewing Republicans as politicians acting in the best interest of the country and its people and start viewing them as the incompetent tyrants that they have become?
I know it’s wrong but my gut just wants to say „whatever, not like they were using their contempt powers anyway.“
Our democracy is dead.
The provision is essentially as the same effect as the [German 1933 Enabling Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)
>was a law that gave the German Cabinet—most importantly, the Chancellor, Adolf Hitler—the power to make and enforce laws without the involvement of the Reichstag or President Paul von Hindenburg. By allowing the Chancellor to override the checks and balances in the constitution, the Enabling Act was a pivotal step in the transition from the democratic Weimar Republic to the totalitarian dictatorship of Nazi Germany.
If courts can’t use injunctions against Trump….they have zero power to push back. Can’t push back against EO’s and god know the R held congress aint gonna do shit except get outta his way
This is the big one. Wake up your sleeping family and friends and get fucking pissed.
Wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?
All Republicans are fascist domestic terrorists
There’s so much stuff in this bill that would never be passed on its own.
We tried to lay it all out over here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/BillSentinel/comments/1ksr3yp/hr1_one_big_beautiful_bill_act/](https://www.reddit.com/r/BillSentinel/comments/1ksr3yp/hr1_one_big_beautiful_bill_act/)
So in other words, the judicial branch of government was just rendered completely inert. Only two branches now remain in the government, soon to be one.
GOP is just giving all the powers to Trump because they have no intention of ever giving up the powers of the presidency again. Checks and balances aren’t needed when you have 1 party autocratic rule.
So if an injection was placed on… say an average citizen we can just ignore the courts?
It seems illegal that a single bill could cuck the justice dept. but I guess congress has been getting cucked since February
Perfect so now when he states that he is doing away with elections Mo body can stop him. Or from coming into your house and grabbing you. Or making your kids go to war or warm all night. Good to know
Am I wrong or is the legislative not allowed to pass bills interfering with the judicial?
Supreme Court: „Here is a copy of Marbury vs Madison. Wait what do you mean you don’t care?“
Congress is banning porn, but also castrating two branches of government — in public.
Make it make sense.
Whenever something this egregious comes up, the defense I see from conservatives and Trump supporters is to act like the end result of it not happening is all that matters.
That provision will get struck down, so why worry about it? Trump won’t actually get to keep that jet, so why complain about it? He’s not actually going to run for a third term, so why act like he will? Because the attempt is an admission of intent, and bad intent is almost as bad as bad actions.
Republicans *want* to be able to openly accept bribes, they *want* to strip away rights from political dissidents, and they *want* to give Trump absolute authority. Just because they’re stopped by factors out of their control doesn’t mean the intent should be ignored.
Every Congressperson who voted for this garbage is a traitor to the constitution and to the nation.
I came here looking for this post after hearing it myself.
There’s no good reason for Congress to neuter the courts this way! NOBODY should be OK with this unless they WANT dictatorship in America.
But neutering the courts has been the plan of Vance and his cohorts in power for a while:
During a podcast interview with Jack Murphy a couple years back, J.D. Vance offered advice for prospective presidential candidate Donald Trump:
>“I think Trump is going to run again in 2024,” he said. “I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people.”
>“And when the courts stop you,” he went on, “stand before the country, and say—” he quoted Andrew Jackson, giving a challenge to the entire constitutional order—“the chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.” . . .
>“We are in a late republican period,” Vance said later, evoking the common New Right view of America as Rome awaiting its Caesar. “If we’re going to push back against it, we’re going to have to get pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.”
Source: [https://www.thebulwark.com/p/jd-vance-thinks-trump-should-defy](https://www.thebulwark.com/p/jd-vance-thinks-trump-should-defy)
Its psychotic that a budget bill can just shoehorn in policy scratched into the margins and sublimate into the system as official law
This is what Trump is talking about when he speaks to a way to enable him to stay in office and no need for any further elections. If this provision is enabled by the Senate democracy is deader than a doornail in this country.
Shouldn’t that be done through constitutional amendment? They shouldn’t be able to knee-cap the courts in anyway.
Sent both senators an email. Hope they can stop this.
No kings in America!
I mean if he’s not going to follow the laws then why would more laws prevent us from giving him a hard time. We need to fight fire with fire. If he’s ungovernable we need to be as well.
Just to be clear. Does this mean crime is basically legal, as long as you’re violating a court order?
CALL YOUR SENATORS:
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?OrderBy=state&%3BSort=ASC
If this passes, it should easily be struck down by the same courts. It’s clearly unconstitutional and should require a constitutional amendment to make such a change, not some law passed by 1 vote over 50%
This is the regime’s Enabling Act
This likely dies in the Senate as a result and returns to the House for revision.
Another Captain Immunity Adventure
It’s not all that hidden, and it’s not about disarming the Supreme Court.
It’s about disarming people of the ability to use the courts to protect their rights.
TL:DR – you’ll have to pay up front if you want to defend your rights in court.
It says that if the government tries to do something to you, and you sue them to stop that, then a judge cannot order them to halt that thing while the trial plays out unless you first put up a bond in whatever amount Trump says it would cost to wait to fuck you over.
So say you’re a green card holder and they try to deport you without a proper hearing. So you sue them to stop it.
Except under this change, if the judge wanted to tell the court „I am going to prevent you from deporting this man until I can rule on this issue“, he would also have to tell you „But first you’re going to have to put up insurance in case I decide against you. The amount of which will be determined by whatever number Trump says it would cost to not deport you just now.“
I don’t see how Congress can legislate constitutional powers without having an amendment. Seems like the judicial branch would be an unequal branch of government.
>The provision „would make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable,“ Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told *Newsweek*. „*It serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts*.“
Precisely!
Robert Reich also raised his concerns over the Republican latest poison provision in a Substack post earliler today. Well, tbf the entire 1,000 page bill is nothing but one gigantic poisonous Reverse Robin Hood grift, i.e., massive transfer of wealth (aka theft) from everyday Americans to the ultra-wealthy and large corporations.
But Robert Reich is right to sound the alarm. In his latest Substack, he highlights the buried provision in the budget bill that says:
>“*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*…”
>The Hidden Provision in the Big Ugly Bill that makes Trump King
>[https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly](https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-the-big-ugly)
Translation?
If Trump’s administration ignores a court order, **federal courts wouldn’t be allowed to enforce consequences**—even for outright contempt. That’s not a technicality. It’s a deliberate move to strip the judiciary of its power to check the executive. If this passes, Trump could defy court rulings with impunity—on tariffs, executive orders, anything—and the courts would be forced to sit on their hands.
This is how democracies die: not with a bang, but in the fine print of a funding bill. Reich’s concern isn’t alarmist—it’s a warning we ignore at our peril.
Close enough. Welcome back, Enabling Act of 1933!