Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Senate Judiciary Unveils Its Own Plan To Curtail Court Orders

by June 13, 2025
June 13, 2025
Senate Judiciary Unveils Its Own Plan To Curtail Court Orders

Walter Olson

Last month, I expressed alarm about a provision in the House budget reconciliation bill proposing to strip from federal courts the power to use contempt sanctions to enforce many court orders. Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee has countered with its own version, which drops the unconstitutional craziness while still advancing the goal of discouraging the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions (PIs). Sam Bray has an early analysis that quotes the actual language. (Note that the Byrd Rule could still apply to prevent incorporation of a fundamentally non-budgetary measure like this into the reconciliation bill.)

Briefly, the Senate proposal would change the House version as follows: restrict grants of injunctions themselves rather than meddle with contempt powers, an approach more likely to survive constitutional review; regulate only PIs and TROs, which are inherently of limited duration, not permanent injunctions; regulate only orders against the federal government, not other defendants; apply prospectively only; exclude bankruptcy proceedings; and, significantly, instruct judges to scale the amount of bonds demanded of plaintiffs to the costs the feds would shoulder from being restrained. 

This last provision could actually make the measure more effective than the House version in curtailing the sorts of short-term court orders against the federal government of which the Trump administration (and to varying extents its predecessors) has complained. It is intended to force judges in many cases to order plaintiffs to put up very substantial bonds, high enough to discourage not only indigent litigants but many others.

In other words, goodbye (probably) to the workaround available under the House version of having judges issue token bonds for a tiny sum. The result could be that it becomes difficult to restrain the feds until a permanent injunction can be obtained, which may take some time. 

The random and irrationally destructive aspects of the House bill laid to one side, it becomes easier to focus the debate on a more fundamental question: in our system of limited government, is it prudent to remove some of the last constraints that prevent the federal government from embarking on an unlawful course of action and then keeping it up for a long period, even if judges correctly foresee that it will be ruled illegal in the end? Are we willing to accept that this would give the federal government an incentive to stall and complicate matters to prevent the entry of permanent injunctions? Should we be doing this at the very moment an administration has adopted wide-ranging lawbreaking as a purposeful shock-and-awe strategy? It doesn’t seem prudent to me. 

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Second federal judge sides against Trump’s election executive order
next post
Secret Deals, Endless Wars: The America First Betrayal in Iran?

You may also like

A Case for Deficit Reduction

April 19, 2024

Considering Safe Banking for the Cannabis Industry

May 23, 2024

Do Public Schools Serve Everyone?

July 11, 2024

How the World Trade Organization Can Get Its...

May 30, 2023

Should We Stop Worrying about Europe’s Reliance on...

August 17, 2023

Conflict Over a “Citi Bike” Illustrates Popularity of...

May 31, 2023

Friday Feature: Learn Beyond The Book

June 14, 2024

ProPublica Profiles Army Corps Failures

November 17, 2023

Consumer Interests (Likely) To Prevail over Producer Interests...

June 11, 2024

The Durham Report: Trump’s Vindication?

May 16, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Tesla sees UK sales rebound in June as EV market accelerates

      July 5, 2025
    • Hived raises $42m to roll out electric delivery fleet across southern England

      July 5, 2025
    • Week Ahead: NIFTY Set To Stay In A Defined Range Unless These Levels Are Taken Out; Drags Support Higher

      July 5, 2025
    • “A turning point for education”: James Caan launches bold education reform plan in House of Lords

      July 5, 2025
    • ‘Invest in Women’ fund criticised for slow rollout as MPs call for bolder action

      July 5, 2025
    • Iran regime escalates repression toward ‘North Korea-style model of isolation and control’

      July 4, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,397)
    • Investing (2,102)
    • Politics (15,945)
    • Stocks (3,190)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved