The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” bill includes provision that would ban judicial system from enforcing contempt orders against court violations
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” bill includes provision that would ban judicial system from enforcing contempt orders against court violations
The provision would bar courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders unless a bond has been paid.
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5013999
Don't worry, Steiner will make sure it won't pass in the Senate.
So the bill contains a bunch of unconstitutional stuff, does the whole bill/law die in court, or just the parts that are unconstitutional?
Just the unconstitutional parts. And the text stays on the books, just with a citation to the court case that says they're unconstitutional.
When the courts strike down a law, they have an obligation to keep as much of it intact as possible.
Example: Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate was eliminated, but the marketplace, subsidies, medicaid expansion, and the preventive care stuff stayed in place.
On a lot of these anti-Trump injunctions, you're starting to see a security bond of $1, exactly because of this.
If the one sentence is the entire statutory language, I don't see anything that removes the judge's existing discretion to require a nominal token bond.
I don't understand. What does the token bond amount do?
It seems that an injunction with a token bond attached would still be enforceable under the proposed law.
There doesn't seem to be anything in the provision that requires the security bond to be substantial.