Posted on 05/28/2025 4:37:03 AM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
House Republicans have inserted a provision into the recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act that could significantly limit judicial oversight of the executive branch. The provision, found on page 562 of the 1,118-page bill, would effectively remove judges’ ability to hold parties in contempt for defying court orders.
The new measure specifically targets injunctions and temporary restraining orders, requiring litigants to provide a security bond before a judge can exercise contempt powers. This requirement would apply to all orders, including those issued before the law’s enactment, potentially affecting numerous existing cases against the Trump administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at share.newsbreak.com ...
Ex post facto??
The bill should also require “standing”.
Now that’s what i’m talking about!
It’s about time the GOP takes defensive action, such as this, instead of wrestling with one busybody activist judge at a time. A gauntlet of Troglodytes.
I'm sure they will ignore that like all the other laws they ignore.
Bill looks DOA in Senate currently. So any such provision will not happen anytime soon.
The black-robed tyrannists are a FAR greater threat to this Republic and our particular form of democracy than President Donald J. Trump could ever be. That is real.
The “contempt” hasn’t taken place yet.
About time Congress acted on this.
Pres. Trump's OBB bill is far from DOA, and his deadline for final passage is July 4, five weeks from now.
Expect it to happen, though exactly what will be included or excluded is today not known.
They need to slip a bill in that allows President Trump to fire all “district” junior judges and deport them back to the crap holes they crawled out of. Especially the Caribbeaners.
No, but retroactive in the sense of applying immediately to existing court orders.
It would not affect closed orders or past rulings, at least as I understand it.
:: Ex post facto?? ::
Not exactly.
The bond requirement already exists but is being ignored by the courts to facilitate the litigants’ narrative.
It being \politically\ applied.
Agreed, but sadly, if or when the next radical Democrat takes the White House, he/she/they/them will run roughshod over the judiciary in ways that we very much don't like.
That said, today's activist judiciary operates far beyond its original Constitutional limits and needs badly to be reined in by Congress.
The title and the imputation is wrong.
It is not a matter of legally avoiding judges orders. It establishes the condition found in other areas of litigation, where the party making the allegations/bringing the matter to court must provide a bond covering the potential legal costs of the litigation should they lose. With no bond they have no skin in the game, no financial penalty for the failure of their own cause.
It’s coming out of the bill. They had republican house members who didn’t know it was in the bill. No surprise. Over a thousand pages of bloat.
Crickets from all the cowardly Speaker Johnson haters.
Where are you, loudmouths?
No bill, even if passed unanimously, would allow for the firing of any District or Circuit judge, or any Justice - under the Constitution they have lifetime tenure during “good behavior,” and good luck impeaching a judge absent absolute proof of them having committing a crime, we’ve impeached all of 8 judges in our entire history.
Wait, I do believe that is already required for a TRO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.