Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

surfered

(11,613 posts)
Mon Jun 2, 2025, 08:53 AM Jun 2025

Hidden in Trump's big, beautiful bill is this:

“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.”

This 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.”

Source: Washington Post Daily Brief

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hidden in Trump's big, beautiful bill is this: (Original Post) surfered Jun 2025 OP
important to know markie Jun 2025 #1
How is this constitutional? Omnipresent Jun 2025 #2
Literally none of this is. This entire administration is illegal AF. Initech Jun 2025 #6
According to the rules of passing a bill by the reconciliation process Freddie Jun 2025 #3
Do we still have a parliamentarian? Do they still have any teeth? Hekate Jun 2025 #5
KnR Hekate Jun 2025 #4
Thank you turbinetree Jun 2025 #7

Omnipresent

(7,308 posts)
2. How is this constitutional?
Mon Jun 2, 2025, 09:03 AM
Jun 2025

Courts have the unquestionable right to determine whether something is constitutional or not.
What kind of crap are they trying to pull?

Freddie

(10,062 posts)
3. According to the rules of passing a bill by the reconciliation process
Mon Jun 2, 2025, 09:26 AM
Jun 2025

Every item in the bill must be related to or affect the budget. This certainly does not. Hopefully the parliamentarian removes this and any other non-budget related BS.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Hidden in Trump's big, be...