On February 19, Trump posted a picture of himself as king on his Twitter/X account. Now, if Senate Republicans pass his big, terrible tax cut bill (pdf) as-is, he will succeed in making himself America’s first monarch/dictator.
That’s because buried on page 562 of the massive 1,116-page bill (pdf- full text) that House Republicans just passed by a razor thin margin is a frightening provision that quietly strips U.S. courts of all ability to hold Trump and members of his administration accountable for failing to comply with court orders. The measure would essentially turn Trump into a king or dictator with unlimited power to break the law with no consequences.
SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION OF FUNDS, on Page 562 of the bill, states,
“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 enact2 ment of this section.”
Here’s what it means:
The federal government appropriates the funds that federal courts need to operate.
This provision Republicans snuck into Trump’s Big, Terrible tax cut bill means that funds that are not money appropriated by the government to operate the courts, must be put up in any civil proceeding brought to stop alleged abuses by Trump and his federal government. Interpretation: Anyone bringing a case against the government stop an abuse of power first has to pay a fee.
Victims of Trump’s authoritarian abuses — like his illegal rendition of people to third countries for imprisonment, federal employees who have been fired illegally, people hurt by his efforts to hamstring and destroy federal agencies, individuals who come under attack by Trump, etc., usually don’t have enough money to post a bond to continue their cases.
The provision will quietly end the court’s ability to enforce contempt of court charges against Trump and his appointees if they persist in refusing to comply with court orders. Courts will have no way — zero — of holding Trump, his appointees or other elected officials accountable for violating laws and abusing people by taking away their rights, kidnapping and imprisoning them, wrongfully firing them, extorting them, threatening or intimidating them, etc.
The provision will leave no way to restrain Trump and his administration when they break the law or violate the Constitution.
If passed with the bill, this provision will remove the last remaining legal constraint on Trump carrying out his worst abuses.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich writes that,
“With this single provision, in other words, Trump will have crowned himself king. No Congress and no court could stop him. Even if a future Congress were to try to stop him, it could not do so without the power of the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas, and laws.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, explains that:
“Recent temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions illustrate this. For example, federal Chief Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order preventing individuals from being flown to a maximum security prison in El Salvador without due process—an order that Judge Boasberg found the federal government willfully disregarded. Federal Judge Paula Xinis has issued orders, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to have Kilmar Abrego Garcia brought back from El Salvador, since he was taken there—the one country in the world that an immigration judge ruled he could not be removed to—without due process and, according to a government lawyer, by mistake. Several federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have issued orders preventing the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 to deport more people to El Salvador without basic due process safeguards. It would make no sense to require the plaintiffs in these suits to pay bonds to be able to have access to the federal courts.
But the provision in the House bill would make the court orders in these cases completely unenforceable. Indeed, the bill is stunning in its scope. It would apply to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued. By its terms, it applies to court orders “issued prior to, on, or subsequent” to its adoption.
Because federal courts rarely have required plaintiffs to post bonds, it would mean that hundreds and hundreds of court orders – in cases ranging from antitrust to protection of private tax information, to safeguarding the social security administration, to school desegregation to police reform – would be rendered unenforceable. Even when the government had been found to violate the Constitution, nothing could be done to enforce the injunctions against it. In fact, the greatest effect of adopting the provision would be to make countless existing judicial orders unenforceable. If enacted, judges will be able to set the bond at $1 so it can be easily met. But all existing judicial orders where no bond was required would become unenforceable.
This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts.”
What can you do about it?
Call your Senators and tell them not to pass Trump’s Big Terrible Bill. While you’re on the phone, demand that they preserve the federal courts’ power to enforce their rulings by holding an administration in contempt. The Capitol Hill switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Sen. John Hickenlooper’s office phone number in Washington, D.C. is (202) 224-5941, and Sen. Michael Bennet’s D.C. office phone number is 202-224-5852. Their offices are open 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., Monday-Friday Eastern Time (7:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. Mountain Time)
Washington, DC 20510
You’d have to be more specific.
And please show me where this proposed “law” makes it “illegal for the courts to stop him from doing whatever he wanted”.
I’ll save you the trouble…it doesn’t.
In fact, I doubt you can articulate what it actually does say.
SInce you asked, here’s what it means.
Preliminary injunctions and temporary restarining orders are what courts use to stop something from happening that an affected party wants to stop. If the judge rules the claim has merit, he or she can issue the appropriate order to keep things as they are until the case is decided.
Security means money that is put up by the plaintiff to pay the winning party after the judgement. Judges have the right to skip this requirement. This bill removes that right, so anyone asking a court to stop a given action must put up thousands of dollars as a security in order for the judge to issue an injuction or restraining order. That’s something most people can’t do, so this is a way of making justice only available to the rich. Do you think Abrego-Garcia’s family could afford thousands of dollars to get a hearing to get him freed?
What this does is keep people from filing claims against the government because they would have to pay large sums of money to do so, because the courts would not be able to waive the security requirement. It would be “illegal for the courts to stop him from doing whatever he wanted” unless the plaintiffs could pay. Justice for the rich, not for the poor.
Do you need anything else explained to you?
Another thought…maybe it’s a way to put the brakes on people like Norm Eisen, Marc Elias and the ACLU , who have been on Trump’s ass since 2016.
Clever.
I haven’t read the whole thing in detail but my first impression is that the administration is trying to make the court responsible for its actions…kinda like if you sue someone ( like the guy Anne encouraged to sue Red Rock) and you lose, you can be countersued. Sort of “put up or shut up.”
It would be great if all the various courts had to think more before they acted. Just what we need…more laws, but maybe necessary until the courts get a grip. All this lawfare is expensive and we pay for it.
I also want to know what “enforcing a contempt citation” means. To my knowledge, Trump hasn’t been found in contempt since he took office.
I think the explanations Anne cites are hyperbolic. “If this passes there will be no way to stop him!”
How do we stop him now?
Win the house and the senate in November, impeach him and convict him. Easy peasy!
I may be wrong (not likely) so I’ll give the post another gander.
Since you love talking about Biden, consider this: If Biden had pushed a bill through making it illegal for the courts to stop him from doing whatever he wanted, would you be okay with it? I’m betting not. It would be another example of Biden’s overreach and general misbehavior. But since it’s Trump, you aren’t sure and think the concerns are hyperbolic.
Who could have guessed?
My main question is what will bathatharry bring up about Biden to deflect attention away from this little inconvenient fact?
🤣
Well, he already used Anne as a deflection, as is his style.
Thanks for noticing!
🙂
Dude, people in comas can pick up your “cleverness”.
Hey, remember when you vowed you’d never respond to anyone?
I do remember, Seamus. I got a second wind and realized I shouldn’t take you seriously.
I looked at some analysis and it looks like the language of the bill limits the
judicial branch to respond when the subject of an injunction or TRO thumbs their nose, unless a “security” is provided prior to enforcement. I guess the smart move would be to provide the security regardless. Pony up, Marc!
It’s funny because I don’t see any of these judges “forcing” Trump, or any president to do anything. In fact, I don’t know if they even can. All they do is write strongly worded letters.
At any rate, it’s a far cry from “Trump can do anything”.
As I think I’ve said before, I come here to find out what you on the left are thinking. I also watch MSNBC and CNN. I also listen to leftist podcasters I respect.
But as far as the average dem, like Anne and her fans, what I have found is that you think the world is simple. There are good guys and bad guys and the bad guys are always somehow Republicans and they need to be punished
I know Anne has been an activist all her life and puts a lot of work into this blog. Kudos!
And I think that Anne is intelligent enough to realize that most of the time she is just slinging red meat to her audience.
It would be great if she could use her intelligence and zeal to provide thoughtful analysis, instead of flooding the zone with quotes from leftist scholars and Paul Krugman, for godssake.
Until then, I’ll continue to visit, which I’m sure you’re glad to know.
I’m not a Democrat, I’m a registered unaffiliated voter who leans left. I’ve voted for Republicans, when I personally knew them to be trustworthy, or when I don’t trust their opponent.
You’re just mimicking your Dear Leader, planting your feet and making a proclamation, then completely reversing when you couldn’t handle people pointing out what a fetid piece of garbage you’re defending. You’re just like him, without the power. Which is why you’re remora’d to his flabby backside.
I’m a registered independent.