Trump’s Attempt to Remove Power from Courts

📰 Trump’s Sweeping Tax Bill

In a move stirring up fresh debate and legal concern, President Donald Trump’s massive tax-and-spending package – dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – includes a surprising addition that could reshape the power of the courts. 🚨

Buried in the 1,100-page bill is a single-sentence provision that could weaken the ability of U.S. judges to enforce contempt orders when the federal government ignores their rulings. This measure would apply not just in future cases, but retroactively, affecting past legal battles too.

Here’s what’s at stake:

⚖️ What Does That Mean?

When a judge issues an injunction – essentially a court order telling someone to stop doing something – they sometimes require the plaintiff (the person asking for the order) to post a monetary bond. This bond covers any financial harm if it turns out the order was wrongly issued.

But here’s the catch:
👉 In lawsuits against the federal government, judges almost never require plaintiffs to post these bonds.
👉 If this bill becomes law, it would block judges from enforcing contempt orders in those cases – even if the government is blatantly ignoring a court’s order.

🛑 A Legal “Get Out of Jail Free” Card?

The Trump administration argues this would deter frivolous lawsuits that seek to block government policies. A March White House memo even instructed agency heads to start asking for these bonds whenever someone sues to halt an agency policy.

Critics, however, see it differently.

Eric Kashdan, a senior legal counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, warns that this change could leave the government free to defy court orders without consequence. 😱

He noted that while judges could technically comply with the new rule by setting very low bonds (like $1), that would take time and burden an already overworked legal system.

🏛️ A Check on Presidential Power

Federal courts have been a key check on President Trump’s second-term agenda. In dozens of cases, plaintiffs have convinced judges to block controversial White House policies, from immigration changes to tariffs.

Just this week, a judge ruled in favor of two small toymakers who sued to block Trump’s tariffs. The administration demanded a bond that would have cost more than the tariffs themselves, effectively nullifying any benefit. Instead, the judge set a modest bond of just $100 and sided with the toymakers. 🧸⚖️

Had this new provision already been law, that outcome could have looked very different.

⚡ “Open Defiance” – And No Remedy

While no judge has actually issued a contempt order against the Trump administration so far, several have warned officials they’re close. Contempt orders are one of the judiciary’s most potent tools: they let judges punish a party for ignoring court orders, through fines or even jail time.

A group of 21 House Democrats raised the alarm in a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson earlier this month. They urged him to strip the provision from the bill, warning:

🏛️ What Happens Next?

The House passed the bill on May 22 by a single vote, with no Democratic support. Now it heads to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 edge. Some Republican senators have already hinted they’ll try to modify the bill – but whether this controversial provision survives remains to be seen.

In a twist of irony, Trump himself has faced contempt orders before – including a 2022 case in New York state court over missing documents in a civil investigation of his business practices. At the time, Trump was fined $10,000 per day until he complied, ultimately paying $110,000.

👀 What to Watch For

As the Senate debates the bill, keep an eye on whether this provision makes it into the final law. If it does, it could permanently weaken federal judges’ ability to keep the government in check.

For those who see the courts as the last line of defense against government overreach, it’s a worrying development.