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

General Discussion

RoeVWade

(488 posts) Sun May 25, 2025, 07:31 AM May 25

154

Page 562 of the House Bill!!! [View all]

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

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Page 562 of the House Bill!!! [View all] RoeVWade May 25 OP

Does being as unconstitutional as the poll tax matter? No, not in today's U.S.. We've gone backwards. Justice and access artemisia1 May 25 #1

The provision is unwise and should be defeated but its not an unconstitutional "poll tax" onenote May 25 #10

...the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances... Xipe Totec May 25 #12

Thanks. You raise a good point and I've modified my post accordingly. onenote May 25 #13

Look at Trump's Memorandum: "Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)" sop May 25 #2

EVERYTHING is transactional... GiqueCee May 25 #5

Yep, that's what's in the bill... their complaint about lawsuits is such noxious BS. These people LymphocyteLover May 25 #7

it's sick and fascist but OTOH, Federal courts haven't yet issued any contempt citations LymphocyteLover May 25 #3

Oh it's a big deal Tickle May 25 #4

I understand that. But again, the courts are simply not issuing contempt citations LymphocyteLover May 25 #8

And if they did rule contempt, who exactly would enforce it? paleotn May 25 #11

Civil contempt is self-enforcing liberalgunwilltravel May 25 #15

"And if they did rule contempt, who exactly would enforce it?" CaptainTruth May 25 #17

You might want to start looking for some faith, then... OldBaldy1701E Monday #22

Buh bye RandiFan1290 Thursday #24

This provision, and probably many others, may run afoul of the "Byrd Rule" Klondike Kat May 25 #6

I wonder...at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire, were there those who grasped elocs May 25 #9

Hard to say since crystal balls are in such short supply. paleotn May 25 #14

and of course it is retroactive. Native May 25 #16

"If you aren't cheating, you're not trying." czarjak May 25 #18

Unprecedented my ass... 2naSalit May 25 #19

"Conservative" Dystopia. Happy to rule over embers if it hurts Liberals. BurnDoubt Monday #20

This has nothing to do with the budget and should not be in a reconciliation bill! SunSeeker Monday #21

so good markie Monday #23