The one big ugly bill contains:
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…
If Robert Reich is correct, that gives Trump license to continue to ignore the judiciary—probably the one sentence in the bill that Trump actually cares about.
Is there a lawyer out there who can explain to me what the phrase that begins “if no security was given” means?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/ensuring-the-enforcement-of-federal-rule-of-civil-procedure-65c
“One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued. ”
So my reading is that if the party bringing the action isn’t asked to pay some money to the court when the injunction was issued, the court wouldn’t be able to spend funds to enforce the injunction.
If that law passes, my hope would be that courts start to request security payments of $1.
Dunno about this bill, but was recently gobsmacked by a report of a new Texas bill:
Unless shot down immediately, this ploy will surely metastasize across the country.
Thanks, Paul. I get it now.