As President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” Act, which includes sweeping tax and budget cuts including to Medicaid and SNAP, is under review in the U.S. Senate, there’s one obscure provision that would also give him and his administration more protection from consequences for violating court orders.
The provision would block federal judges from enforcing contempt of court citations if they had not previously ordered a bond, essentially making it more expensive for plaintiffs suing the federal government. Typically, judges have wide discretion regarding whether to strictly enforce bond orders, which are technically required.
If the Republican-sponsored provision musters through congressional rulemaking, is passed by the Senate, and signed into law by Trump, the federal courts’ power would weaken, as the executive branch’s power would essentially be expanded. It also comes at a politically convenient time for Trump, as several federal judges have threatened to open contempt of court proceedings against his administration due to their failure to comply with court orders. These cases are largely related to the administration’s mass deportations.
Democrats and critics of the provision warn that the somewhat hidden provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” would allow Trump and his officials to continue ignoring court orders that they do not agree with, threatening the nation’s rule of law and the strength of the judicial system.
“House Republicans snuck in a devious policy to restrict the authority of federal courts to hold government officials in contempt when they violate court orders,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in a “Dear Colleague” letter on Sunday. “Republicans’ naked subservience to a lawless President is gravely dangerous and Senate Democrats won’t stand for it.”
The longtime New York senator added, “Should Senate Republicans include this rotten provision, I vow, alongside all of you, to fight tooth and nail to strike this authoritarian attack on our system of justice.”
“The timing of attempts like this one which would restrict federal courts from enforcing contempt orders reveals that many in Congress are interested in changing the rules to benefit and appease one person – the president,” Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an advisor at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
She told theGrio, “At a time when this administration is subverting the rule of law and actively working to roll back our civil rights, the move to suddenly restrict federal judges’ access to tools to prohibit unlawful and unconstitutional actions is shameful.”
Zwarensteyn added, “Indeed, the language under consideration right now would make it much more difficult for people to challenge unlawful actions, and it further undermines the independence of our judiciary. We need our federal courts to work for all of us.”
In Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis said she was considering issuing contempt charges against Trump administration officials amid an investigation as to whether the White House violated the Supreme Court’s ruling to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man husband and father who was wrongly deported to a prison in El Salvador.
“Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance,” wrote Judge Xinis in April. She called the Trump administration’s noncompliance “willful” and argued it was done in “bad faith.”
Other court violations included an order from Judge James A. Boasberg to stop flights deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador and another case involving the deportation of people to countries other than their origin without giving them enough time to contest in court. In March, plaintiffs in a case challenging Trump’s executive order prohibiting DEI policies for federal contractors and businesses accused the administration of ignoring a court injunction that temporarily blocked its enforcement.
Anthony Coley, a former political appointee at the Department of Justice during the Biden administration, told theGrio of the proposed provision: “In less than five months, judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have ruled against Trump more than 180 times — a direct result of his administration’s repeated violations of federal law.”
He continued, “Now, because he doesn’t like the referees’ calls, he’s trying to change the rules of the game.”
