A massive tax-and-spending bill pushing through Congress carries a hidden clause that could severely limit judges’ ability to hold the government in contempt when it flouts court orders.
Buried inside the sprawling 1,100-page package is a short but powerful provision that stops federal courts — even the Supreme Court — from enforcing contempt citations unless plaintiffs post a monetary bond upfront. In practice, this bond requirement effectively muzzles courts, since such bonds are rarely demanded or posted in lawsuits against government agencies.
The idea behind the bond is straightforward: in private disputes, it protects defendants from wrongful injunctions by ensuring funds are available to cover losses if the court later reverses itself. But applying this to government cases creates a nearly impossible barrier to enforcement.
The provision applies retroactively and forbids courts from punishing contempt without a security deposit when an injunction or restraining order is violated. Critics say this hands a free pass to government officials who ignore judicial commands, leaving courts powerless.
This move follows a White House directive earlier this year encouraging agencies to require bonds before facing injunctions, justified by officials as a way to curb frivolous lawsuits. But opponents see it as a deliberate attempt to shield the administration from legal challenges.
Though judges have yet to formally issue contempt orders against government defiance in recent times, multiple federal judges have expressed concern that administration officials are blatantly ignoring court rulings. Without the power to enforce contempt, courts lose their main tool to ensure compliance — which usually escalates from fines to jail time until the defendant obeys.
The House narrowly approved the bill with this controversial clause intact. Democrats warn the change would gut the judiciary’s authority and let the government defy court orders with impunity. Some Republicans are signaling plans to revise the measure before it moves to the Senate.
Legal experts say judges could theoretically work around the bond rule by setting nominal amounts, but this would bog down the courts in complex procedures, allowing the government to stall indefinitely. Meanwhile, affected parties could suffer harm while waiting for relief.
This provision signals a significant shift in the balance of power, potentially weakening judicial oversight and reshaping how the government responds to legal constraints.
