Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Aims to Strip Federal Courts of Contempt Powers for Injunction Violations
Buried provision in the GOP budget reconciliation proposal threatens enforcement of civil rights rulings, corporate regulations, and longstanding injunctions.
WASHINGTON — In a move drawing sharp concern from legal scholars and civil rights observers, the House Judiciary Committee has unveiled a reconciliation bill that could drastically curb the federal judiciary’s authority to enforce its own rulings through contempt proceedings—particularly in cases where no monetary security was posted alongside an injunction.
Migrant Insider is sponsored by
Buried deep within the bill’s language is a provision stating that “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,” referencing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c).
Though often overlooked by the public, the power to hold parties in contempt has long been one of the judiciary's key enforcement tools. Under current practice, courts rarely require bonds when granting injunctions—especially in lawsuits against government defendants. But under the proposed provision, even the most routine court orders could become effectively toothless.
Legal Safeguards at Risk
The proposed change would affect not just newly issued injunctions but also those that have been in place for years.
Without contempt enforcement, courts would be left issuing orders they could no longer meaningfully enforce.
And the bill’s impact wouldn’t be confined to government cases. Legal observers warn it could extend to everything from antitrust rulings and school desegregation orders to private disputes involving patent infringement or contract violations. In essence, the door would be open for individuals and institutions alike to ignore binding court orders—without fear of punishment.
Ambiguous Scope, Sweeping Consequences
Legal analysts note that the bill fails to distinguish between preliminary and permanent injunctions. While Rule 65(c) formally applies only to the former, the legislation’s broad language effectively nullifies contempt enforcement for all court orders—past, present, and future.
Courts may attempt to circumvent the rule by requiring token bonds—$1, for instance—to preserve enforcement mechanisms. But that workaround would do little for thousands of injunctions already on the books.
On a Collision Course with the Constitution
The proposed provision is already drawing constitutional scrutiny. In Michaelson v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled that even congressional attempts to modify contempt procedures must not interfere with the inherent authority of courts to enforce their own rulings.
The provision, critics argue, could effectively nullify years of judicial labor across multiple federal agencies—from the Department of Justice to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY
Wider Implications
Though the bill does not mention immigration explicitly, some experts worry it could impact key immigration rulings, especially those where courts have previously enjoined enforcement actions or set limits on federal authority.
If passed, the bill could weaken not only the federal judiciary’s enforcement power but also the perceived legitimacy of the rule of law.
With little fanfare, a provision tucked into a late-night bill may have just launched one of the most consequential legal debates of the decade.