WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee’s portion of major spending legislation includes a provision that appears to limit the authority of judges to find U.S. government officials in contempt of court, drawing fire from critics who say it amounts to freeing the Trump administration to ignore court orders.

The measure, Section 70303, is the final paragraph of 116 pages of text the committee approved last week as part of the process detailed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution.

The language would prohibit courts from using federal funds to enforce a contempt citation for failing to comply with court orders if plaintiffs don’t offer money for bond pursuant to the rules of civil procedure — something experts said does not happen in most cases challenging U.S. government policies.

A House Judiciary Committee aide said the provision is meant “basically to stop frivolous lawsuits.”

Democrats say the language would have a profound impact on the authority of the courts at a time when the Trump administration has expressed hostility towards judges for issuing orders against his policy initiatives.

At least two federal judges — Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court of Maryland — have suggested they might find Trump administration officials in contempt of court in immigration-related cases.

At the markup of the text last Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, top Democrat on the committee, said the proposal “seeks to strip the courts of their power to hold an administration in contempt when the president violates explicit judicial court orders.”

Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., said the provision could only be meant to shield the Trump administration from adverse consequences in the judiciary.

“It makes it much, much more difficult for a judge to enforce a contempt order,” Goldman said. “Huh? Wonder why the Republicans are trying to do that, as two judges have threatened to hold the administration in contempt of court for defying court orders.”

“Now, the Republicans, rather than encourage the president of the United States to follow the rule of law, to follow court orders, including a unanimous nine-to-nothing Supreme Court ruling, are actually trying to make it easier for the president to violate court orders,” Goldman said.

Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., offered an amendment to strike the language from the committee text, but it was not adopted.

“MAGA Republicans are trying to use this spending bill to keep Americans from using the courts to constrain Trump’s illegal actions,” Balint said. “They are saying that unless you can hand over a lot of money when Trump and his administration violate your rights, they can just keep on violating them.”

David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University and former national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the provision “without question is directed at Judge Boasberg,” but also broadly at the authority of the courts to hold President Donald Trump accountable.

“And there’s no question in my mind that this is an act of complicity, designed to shield the president from accountability for the boldly evasive and defiant actions that he has already taken and will presumably continue to take,” Cole said.

Rule 65

Rule 65 of the federal rules of civil procedure states that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

He said judges “almost never” require plaintiffs suing federal or state governments to put up a bond because “it is just not relevant in the context,” pointing out there would be questions about the amount that would be appropriate.

In most cases to enjoin government action, whether it be a prison, school board, police department, or the Trump administration, no bond is assessed, Cole said.

Cole concluded that is “for good reason” because plaintiffs are often indigent, and the bond would “make it very difficult for citizens to vindicate their rights against the government.”

Mike Davis, president of The Article III Project that advocates for Trump judicial nominations, defended the provision as consistent with civil procedure and needed at a time the judiciary has halted the Trump administration’s policies.

“Judges need to follow the law, including Rule 65, which requires bonds for injunctions, and this is a good way to start to rein in these activist judges who are sabotaging the president’s core Article II executive powers,” Davis said.

Boasberg found probable cause the Trump administration engaged in criminal contempt of court for refusing to comply with his order stopping the deportation of migrants under the Alien Enemies Act. The contempt charges are currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Xinis has suggested she might find the U.S. government in contempt in a case where critics say the U.S. government has been refusing to comply with a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador on allegation he’s a MS-13 member despite a withholding order against his deportation.

Trump said during a recent interview with ABC News he “could” have Abrego Garcia returned, but added El Salvador President Nayib Bukele would have objections. “And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Trump added, before saying, “I’m not the one making this decision.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a CBS News interview that in the event Abrego Garcia were returned to the United States, “we would immediately deport him again.”

Noem also maintained Abrego Garcia is not under the jurisdiction of the United States and is not a U.S. citizen. The New York Times reported on Tuesday the Trump administration recently sent a diplomatic note to officials in El Salvador to inquire about the return of Abrego Garcia, but the Salvadoran government said no because he’s a Salvadoran citizen.

Separation of powers

It’s unclear whether courts would ultimately find the provision itself unconstitutional, based on the intrusion Congress would be making on a co-equal branch of government.

Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, wrote in a Substack post the provision is “probably unconstitutional” because of legal precedent against compromising inherent powers of the courts to hold individuals in contempt.

Cole said he’s uncertain whether courts would consider the provision unconstitutional because Congress has broad authority over their jurisdiction, but added “one could make an argument” the language directly undermines the basic function of the judiciary to hold the government accountable.

“It’s very rare, but there’s a whole debate about when are limits imposed by Congress on the courts unconstitutional, and there’s a sort of a fair consensus that while Congress has broad authority over the course, it cannot undermine their essential function,” Cole said. “And I think this would undermine their essential function by taking away their only power to hold defendants accountable in any case where they have not imposed a bond.”

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.