WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE?

FURTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA FOLLOW-UP ON THE SENATE REACTION TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS NEWSLETTER REGARDING THE HOUSE GOP EFFORT TO BAR COURTS FROM REIGNING IN TRUMP.

The Washington Post has caught on to the House GOP attempt to use their Budget Reconciliation Bill (now in the Senate’s hands) to neuter retroactively the power of the federal courts — including the Supreme Courts — to enforce their decisions to restrain, suspend and reverse the Trump Administration’s unconstitutional and illegal executive orders and actions against universities like Harvard; law firms; immigrants; business firms and states impacted by Trump’s tariffs and his abrogation of existing contracts; federal employees protected by Civil Service and other laws; and civic associations and non-governmental entities deprived of appropriated government aid. They carry out this attack on Constitutionally mandated separations of powers with merely one sentence tucked in to the thousand-plus page legislation:

“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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”

The Post today reported that “The provision, called section 70302, would effectively block courts from enforcing injunctions without the party bringing the suit paying a bond. It’s an expansion of current rules, which require a bond — equal to “the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained” — that courts often waive when they determine the case is in the public interest. This would have enormous consequences for the courts and the presidency. Liberal activists and blue states often sue for nationwide injunctions to stop President Donald Trump’s policies. For a nationwide case, bonds could theoretically add up to billions of dollars.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/02/will-senate-kill-house-gop-pet-policy/

The newspaper’s analysis, however, also pointed out that Section 70302 of the House Reconciliation Bill could be jettisoned even before a vote by the operation of the Senate’s standing rules for that type of budgetary legislation. “For the Republican bill to pass the Senate on a simple majority under reconciliation, all of its provisions must have a sizable impact on the budget. And the Congressional Budget Office reported that it couldn’t assess any impact on the budget by this section. Bobby Kogan, a former Democratic Senate Budget Committee staffer, told us that means this section will probably have to be cut.

“….

“Who makes the call on whether a provision is budget-impacting enough to be included in the bill? That’s usually the job of the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan position that determines the application of the rules of the Senate. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) can call a vote to overrule the parliamentarian if he disagrees with the assessment, and he revealed last month that he was willing to do so on a case involving California’s environmental standards. Thune hasn’t said how he would treat a parliamentarian ruling on section 70302.”

USA Today on May 31 also took notice the potentially devastating impact on current court ruling against Trump’s orders of Section 70302 if the House GOP Bill if the Senate does not remove it one way or another.

“A provision in the House-passed package of President Donald Trump’s priorities would erect what one judge called a trillion-dollar barrier to challenging his policies in federal court. At stake is whether judges can enforce their orders blocking Trump policies that are ruled unlawful, as they already have 180 times. The muscle behind court orders is that judges could find government officials in contempt if they disobey, threatening fines, sanctions or even jail.

“But the obscure House provision, which even a Republican supporter of the legislation disavowed, would prevent judges from enforcing their orders unless litigants post a bond. The bond could match the amount at stake in the lawsuit, which in one case was trillions in federal grants.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/31/house-bill-trump-policies-court-orders-injunction/83911101007/

“The legislative provision echoes a Trump memo signed March 11 that called for the Justice Department to request bonds in all lawsuits to protect against ‘potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction.’…

‘The dispute over enforcing court orders adds Congress’ legislative branch to the raging debate the separation of powers between Trump’s executive branch carrying out laws and judges interpreting some of his actions as unlawful.

“‘This is Congress saying, ‘No, we don’t think you can enforce these orders’ and they’re doing that at the strong demands of the executive branch,’” Kashdan said. ‘It’s a huge separation of powers issue for what underlies our democracy, and all the checks and balances we’re supposed to have.’”

Ibid.

Stay tuned: the Senate parliamentarian’s decision could come in early June.