Page 562 of the House Bill!!!

[RoeVWade]

One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond.

Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, called that "unprecedented."

"The greatest impact will be in preventing enforcement of all existing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions if a bond has not been posted — and rarely were there bonds required," Chemerinsky wrote me in an email.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-most-beautiful-part-of-trump-s-bill-is-it-helps-him-defy-federal-courts-opinion/ar-AA1FqVlD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=0815ae706b9f4d5bbce96ad4f5e8c452&ei=26

[artemisia1]

1. Does being as unconstitutional as the poll tax matter? No, not in today's U.S.. We've gone backwards. Justice and access

to rights is not supposed to be for sale. That is why the Founding Fathers rejected land ownership as a criteria for suffrage.

[onenote]

10. The provision is unwise and should be defeated but its not an unconstitutional "poll tax"

Last edited Sun May 25, 2025, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Poll taxes -- a requirement to pay a tax as a prerequisite to voting -- is unconstitutional, but only because of the 24th Amendment:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax."

Obviously, this amendment doesn't address security bonds for injunctions or TROs. However, an argument can be made -- and should be made -- that the imposition of fees or other payment, such as a security bond -- for access to the courts or for relief from the courts -- without a provision allowing for a waiver of such fees violates the right to petition the government. The Supreme Court hasn't reached this issue and I have my doubts whether the current court would adopt such an argument but while there are instances where a bond is appropriate, the decision whether or not to require one should be left to the judge, not universally required.

edited to reflect a more thoughtful and complete analysis.

[Xipe Totec]

12. ...the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances...

Sounds like a violation of the first amendment to me.

[onenote]

13. Thanks. You raise a good point and I've modified my post accordingly.

[sop]

2. Look at Trump's Memorandum: "Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)"

"MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES"

Subject: Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/ensuring-the-enforcement-of-federal-rule-of-civil-procedure-65c/

[GiqueCee]

5. EVERYTHING is transactional...

... with this sonofabitch. With guidance from the snakes in the Heritage Foundation, and other nests of conservative vipers, the nation's courts have been co-opted by nakedly partisan operatives, adding yet another layer of obstruction to access of due process. This bullshit cannot possibly be legal, and Trump's minions are turning their own scam inside out to victimize those seeking redress through the courts.
Of course, Roberts, and the rest of the corrupt conservative swine on the SCOTUS, will apply pretzel logic to ensure that Trump gets his way. My hatred of these people burns hotter than the surface of the Sun, and since Trump's second usurpation of the presidency, it has gone supernova.

[LymphocyteLover]

7. Yep, that's what's in the bill... their complaint about lawsuits is such noxious BS. These people

are the fucking worst.

[LymphocyteLover]

3. it's sick and fascist but OTOH, Federal courts haven't yet issued any contempt citations

despite the administration's lawlessness, so I'm not sure how meaningful it is.

[Tickle]

4. Oh it's a big deal

The provision in the “Big Beautiful Bill” that limits the enforcement of contempt citations is a big deal because it strikes at the heart of judicial authority. By barring courts from using federal funds to enforce contempt orders in certain cases, the bill weakens one of the judiciary’s most powerful tools to ensure compliance with the law—especially in cases involving civil rights, government oversight, and constitutional protections. This shift effectively shields government officials and agencies from being held accountable for ignoring court orders, eroding the system of checks and balances that underpins the rule of law. Critics warn that it sets a dangerous precedent where the executive branch can act with near impunity, undermining the foundational principle that no one is above the law—not even elected officials.

[LymphocyteLover]

8. I understand that. But again, the courts are simply not issuing contempt citations

such as it is. Furthermore there's no clear reason to think this law (if passed) will keep elections from occurring.

Obviously one can imagine circumstances where the administration will try to cancel elections, but if that happens, we will be far beyond courts issuing contempt citations that will mean anything.

[paleotn]

11. And if they did rule contempt, who exactly would enforce it?

No one.

I do agree on the elections, however. There will be elections in 2026. Fair elections in blue states. And a host of new Dems will be elected. But their election will be called fraudulent by the regime, even though it wasn't of course. But that doesn't matter. House Republicans and Speaker "Jebus" Johnson will be pressured not to seat them, and they will cave. Cave isn't the right word for most of them as they're in on the coup. Following orders is a better fit.

Our democracy is on life support and congressional Republicans might just "pull the plug" in Jan. 2027.

[liberalgunwilltravel]

15. Civil contempt is self-enforcing

That’s what’s important here. The executive branch is not involved. The US Marshals/DOJ have no role in enforcing civil contempt. That’s why this is so insidious. Federal judges can now impose personal, monetary penalties on those they hold in contempt and double them every day until they comply. The rulings can be appealed, but the DOJ has no role. The Republicans know they are breaking the law and they are doing everything to avoid consequences. If they continue to take peaceful means of resistance away (and they will try) then violence will certainly ensue.

[CaptainTruth]

17. "And if they did rule contempt, who exactly would enforce it?"

No one?

Not millions of enraged citizens?

If Americans sit back & let that happen without a collective show of force I truly will lose faith in my country.

[Klondike Kat]

6. This provision, and probably many others, may run afoul of the "Byrd Rule"

The "Byrd Rule" states that reconciliation bills may only address items that directly affect the budget. More information on the "Reconciliation" process can be found [link:here|https://www.cbpp.org/research/introduction-to-budget-reconciliation].

[elocs]

9. I wonder...at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, were there those who grasped

that it was ending? Are we so smug and arrogant to believe the same cannot or is not happening here? How art the mighty fallen, or falling. Let's be honest...how much "United" is left in the United States? Unlike the Civil War there is no Mason/Dixon line when your neighbor could be a slave owner because maga are mixed among us. I wonder if what is happening here now in reality is the final battle of the Civil War or the revenge of the South against the North since most of the maga states are in the south?

Will the last one out please turn off the lights.

[paleotn]

14. Hard to say since crystal balls are in such short supply.

We may feel events are leading in one direction or another, but really, it's a set of possible outcomes, and it's impossible to say which will actually come to pass. I feel a breakup might be on the horizon, but that's one of several possible paths. Newsome and CA are certainly edging in that direction. Here in New England, elected officials are cagy when asked about it, but it's no longer dismissed out of hand either. Just the fact they're being asked about it and are responding instead of simply ignoring it as crazy talk is interesting by itself.

Interesting response from Boston's mayor on the question of New England independence and whether people can actually foresee the course of actual events. Read into her comments what you will. She's kind of cagy about it.

https://www.tiktok.com/@officeofmayorwu/video/7493943002319162655?_r=1&_t=ZT-8wa4T4lq2XO

[Native]

16. and of course it is retroactive.

[czarjak]

18. "If you aren't cheating, you're not trying."

The Jesus Way, of course for fake Christians?