House Republicans Advance Plan to Rein in Judges’ Contempt Power

The House Judiciary Committee advanced a proposal to make it harder for judges to enforce their orders over protests from Democrats, as Republicans aim to curb judicial power in response to rulings against the administration.

The proposal—which moved forward late Wednesday night along party lines as part of the panel’s portion of a Republican sweeping tax and spending cuts package—would bar federal courts from holding individuals in contempt of court for violating an order unless the challengers had put up a financial security, or a money bond.

This would effectively limit the circumstances when judges could enforce their own orders blocking Trump administration policies, since bonds aren’t commonly ordered in constitutional challenges.

During a nine-hour markup, Committee Democrats criticized the provision and accused Republicans of trying to make it easier for the administration to skirt federal court orders.

The measure would “strip the courts of their power to hold an administration in contempt when the president violates explicit judicial court orders,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said in his opening remarks.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee’s courts panel, proposed an amendment to strip that language out of the bill during the meeting, but the measure was defeated along party lines.

“They’re 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,” Johnson said. “It’s just one more way that MAGA Republicans and the Trump administration want to trample on your rights unless you’re rich.”

The move comes as at least two federal judges are weighing holding administration officials in criminal contempt over their conduct in litigation challenging deportations under a wartime statute.

The chief judge of the Washington federal trial court recently concluded there was probable cause to find officials in contempt for ignoring his order to halt deportations of alleged gang members to a Salvadoran prison.

House Republican leaders are eyeing the spending process as a tool to rein in judges, who they see as having overstepped their authorities with nationwide rulings against the administration’s executive actions.

The White House had earlier directed the Justice Department to ask judges to require court challengers to post a bond when an injunction is issued. This would allow the government to recoup costs if the ruling blocking the contested policy is later reversed.

An earlier version of the bill text, released publicly by the committee, would have consolidated the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust functions. However, that portion was stripped out of the text by the panel in a manager’s amendment.

The bill would also impose hefty fees on asylum-seekers and other immigrants.