4 ms·

It would be handy if they could actually quote the text of the bill and maybe link to a specific version rather than making assertions. I have multiple versions

by jack_h 1y ago

It would be handy if they could actually quote the text of the bill and maybe link to a specific version rather than making assertions. I have multiple versions of the bill up in front of me and "contempt" and a few related searches turns up nothing.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
Found it in this: https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/one_big_beautiful_bill_act_-_full_bill_text.pdf https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/one_big_beautiful_bil... > SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION OF FUNDS. > 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.
- jack_h 1y ago
  Thanks for tracking it down. It looks like my browser fails when searching large PDFs. It would still be nice if journalists provided links, sections, etc.
- lokar 1y ago
  Could a judge appoint a state agency to enforce the citation for free?
  - UncleEntity 1y ago
    How about a community bake sale? The current administration seems hellbent on destroying ideas which go all the way back to the Magna Carta...
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      If they ask for posse volunteers, I might sign up.
mikeyouse 1y ago
For the text + an analysis of the legal implications: https://www.justsecurity.org/113529/terrible-idea-contempt-court/ https://www.justsecurity.org/113529/terrible-idea-contempt-c... > The provision in the proposed budget reconciliation bill states: “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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.” > By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” ... > But the provision in the House bill would make the court orders in these cases completely unenforceable. Indeed, the bill is stunning in its scope. It would apply to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued. By its terms, it applies to court orders “issued prior to, on, or subsequent” to its adoption.

by jack_h 1y ago

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago

Found it in this: https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/one_big_beautiful_bill_act_-_full_bill_text.pdf https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/one_big_beautiful_bil... > SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION OF FUNDS. > 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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

jack_h 1y ago
Thanks for tracking it down. It looks like my browser fails when searching large PDFs. It would still be nice if journalists provided links, sections, etc.
lokar 1y ago
Could a judge appoint a state agency to enforce the citation for free?
- UncleEntity 1y ago
  How about a community bake sale? The current administration seems hellbent on destroying ideas which go all the way back to the Magna Carta...
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    If they ask for posse volunteers, I might sign up.

mikeyouse 1y ago

For the text + an analysis of the legal implications: https://www.justsecurity.org/113529/terrible-idea-contempt-court/ https://www.justsecurity.org/113529/terrible-idea-contempt-c... > The provision in the proposed budget reconciliation bill states: “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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.” > By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” ... > But the provision in the House bill would make the court orders in these cases completely unenforceable. Indeed, the bill is stunning in its scope. It would apply to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued. By its terms, it applies to court orders “issued prior to, on, or subsequent” to its adoption.