Here's What's Hidden in the "Big Beautiful Bill"
A provision in the House’s new budget bill could strip federal judges of the power to enforce their own rulings—especially in cases involving Trump officials.
While most of the media spotlight danced over the surface of the House’s latest budget deal — dubbed the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” — a provision buried inside is sending shockwaves through legal circles.
It’s easy to miss. But its implications are massive.
The language says federal courts can’t spend government money to enforce contempt findings in certain cases — specifically, when someone defies a court order or injunction and no bond or “security” was posted when the order was issued.
Here’s the thing: bonds are almost never posted in lawsuits against the government. So in effect, this ties the judiciary’s hands. Judges can still issue orders — but if those orders are ignored, they may not be able to do much about it.
And that’s exactly the point.
Legal experts warn the move is designed to shield Trump officials from accountability, especially those facing court orders tied to investigations or civil suits. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkeley Law, says the provision could severely weaken the judiciary’s role in our system of checks and balances.
No bond posted? No contempt charge. No enforcement.
It’s a loophole — a bureaucratic trick with constitutional consequences that upends checks and balances.
Critics say this could open the door for executive branch actors to ignore court orders without fear of penalty — as long as the paperwork is stacked just right.
Combine this with the noises the administration is making about suspending habeas corpus, a certain path is becoming clear.
Sources: