\n<\/p>\n
Democrats in the<\/span> Senate are preparing to fight an attempt by Republicans to limit federal courts\u2019 authority to block abuses of power by the Trump administration. \u00a0<\/p>\n The looming showdown over the judiciary\u2019s power to issue contempt orders stems from a single sentence tucked into the thousand-page budget bill<\/a>, which passed the House of Representatives by a single vote<\/a> on Thursday.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a slap in the face to the concept of separation of powers,\u201d said a spokesman for Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.).<\/p>\n If enacted, the provision<\/a> \u2014\u00a0found on page 544 out of 1,082 \u2014 would restrict how federal judges can hold government officials or other litigants in contempt if they defy court-issued injunctions and restraining orders. Contempt is the primary enforcement mechanism available to courts, and in cases around the country<\/a> judges have weighed whether to issue contempt findings against President Donald Trump\u2019s deputies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n In April, one judge found there was probable cause<\/a> for contempt after the administration transported dozens of Venezuelan men to a notorious prison in El Salvador despite an order temporarily blocking such deportations \u2014 a ruling that\u2019s paused while a federal appellate court considers<\/a> the issue.<\/p>\n Contempt is also on the table<\/a> against White House officials in the fight to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador, and just this week another judge floated possible contempt charges<\/a> over deportation flights to South Sudan.<\/p>\n Frustrated at such judges\u2019 gall and the proliferation of injunctions against the Trump administration\u2019s actions on everything from immigration to transgender rights to federal staffing, Republicans now hope to use the budget bill to curb judicial power.<\/p>\n The provision passed by the House would prohibit judges from enforcing contempt orders unless they also require the litigants that sought the injunction in the first place to put up a security bond. Essentially this means requiring plaintiffs \u2014 whether individuals like Abrego Garcia or the unions, civil liberties advocates and watchdog groups that have filed suits challenging broader policies \u2014 to put down money in case an injunction is later found to be \u201cwrongful.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cRepublicans are once again seeking to twist the rules to avoid accountability and advance their overtly political interests by attempting to shut down federal courts\u2019 enforcement mechanism.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n \u201cIt would make no sense to require the plaintiffs in these suits to pay bonds to be able to have access to the federal courts,\u201d explained<\/a> Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law, \u201cand insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review.\u201d The relevant federal rule<\/a> about security bonds and injunctions is generally relaxed when the lawsuit alleges illegal conduct by the government. \u00a0<\/p>\n As written, the provision would be retroactive, which Chemerinsky warned would mean \u201chundreds and hundreds of court orders \u2013 in cases ranging from antitrust to protection of private tax information, to safeguarding the social security administration, to school desegregation to police reform \u2013 would be rendered unenforceable.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Chemerinsky considers the provision in the budget bill fundamentally \u201canti-democratic\u201d and also \u201cunconstitutional as violating separation of powers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n