A long list of dozens of judges at the entry level to the federal court system have issued nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump and his voter-endorsed agenda to cut waste and fraud, remove illegal alien criminals and more.
They’ve insisted on claiming the power to make decisions for the executive branch, even to the level of personnel hirings and firings.
And they’ve threatened the administration with contempt for not following their opinions.
But Congress now is formulating a response to that leftist agenda, a response that would withdraw the authority of those judges to enforce their own orders unless there was a bond posted when they issued the injunction.
That’s already in federal law: A judge issuing an injunction can require those demanding the injunction to post a bond to cover the costs and expenses involved should that injunction eventually be overturned.
But most judges simply ignore that requirement, or set a bond at zero.
A report in the Washington Examiner explains President Trump’s “big, beautiful” bill, a reconciliation package approved by the House and now pending in the Senate, includes a resolution to the problem.
“The 1,000-page bill includes a provision to curb the power of federal judges to hold the Trump administration in contempt for violating court orders,” the report said.
“We think what these federal judges are doing is tantamount to a national crisis,” a GOP aide told the publication.
The plan is for courts to enforce a rule that calls for a bond to be posted before a federal judge can issue an injunction to stop an administration move.
“Judges often refrain from using these bonds, including if plaintiffs don’t have the resources to pay, and can choose to set the bond at zero. Under the bill that passed the House, a judge’s injunction would not have teeth without the bond payment,” the report said.
The wording is: “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.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chief of the House Judiciary Committee, said, “The judge can set the security at whatever level he wants. What’s typically happened in these cases is he’s just waiving it. Nobody’s putting it up. And they’re getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern.”
The result would be, if it reaches the point of being signed into law, that every federal court injunction that waived the security requirement would suddenly be unenforceable.
It’s not the only move developing in response to the judges’ determinations that they will make executive branch decisions.
“Last month, Rep. Darrell Issa’s, R-Calif., bill to block district courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions passed the House. Another attempt came from Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who introduced articles of impeachment against District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. Boasberg has threatened contempt proceedings over the order,” the report explained.
Democrats argue the plan to have judges require bonds, or lose the ability to enforcement their rulings, is unconstitutional.