Power of judges to hold Trump administration in contempt may be undermined with filibuster-proof GOP proposal
Source: CNN Politics
Published 11:26 AM EDT, Thu May 1, 2025
CNN The ability of federal judges to hold the Trump administration in contempt for defying their orders could be undermined by legislation approved by a House Republican-led committee late Wednesday in a bill that may be impossible for Senate Democrats to filibuster. Republicans say that the provision is aimed at discouraging frivolous lawsuits. Democrats and the administrations legal opponents charge that GOP lawmakers are seeking to give President Donald Trump the green light to engage in illegal conduct that had been prohibited by courts.
Instead of providing support for the judicial branch, this Judiciary Committee bill seeks to strip to strip the courts of their power to hold the administration in contempt when the President violates court orders, Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said before Wednesdays vote. The legislation comes amid a multi-front campaign by Trump and his allies to attack the legal institutions that are serving as a check on his aggressive use of presidential power. That has included smearing judges who have ruled against his policies and issuing executive orders targeting law firms that represent his political foes.
The Justice Department has also at times resisted providing courts with information relevant to the disputes before them. The House proposal would defund the enforcement of contempt orders if the judge had previously not ordered the plaintiffs in the case to put up a security bond with a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order granted in their favor essentially making it more expensive to challenge administrative policies.
Notably the language is retroactive, so if it became law, it would hamstring a courts ability to hold the administration in contempt for defying a court order issued before the bill was enacted if the judge had denied bond. The Trump administration has already faced the possibility of contempt proceedings for allegedly not complying with an order from Judge James Boasberg that sought to halt the deportation of certain migrants.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/01/politics/judges-contempt-undermined-house-republicans

Chasstev365
(5,397 posts)Are you Fucking Kidding me? Donald Trump's entire life has been one frivolous lawsuit after another. But to the GOP lawsuits that try to protect our rights are "frivolous."
Don't just blame Trump: Republicans allow all of it!
Irish_Dem
(69,059 posts)And to punish and control others.
The law only works to their benefit. No one else.
They also accuse others of the crimes they themselves commit.
markodochartaigh
(2,755 posts)Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
OldBaldy1701E
(7,748 posts)And, what is giving these conservatives the power to do that?
(Should I answer?)
The system is too corrupted. Laws are too corrupted. Agencies are too biased. Departments are either too powerful or too constricted to have any efficacy at all.
Time to get the hose. That won't tear down the house (nor would we want to), but it will sure wash out the dirt.
ancianita
(40,393 posts)OldBaldy1701E
(7,748 posts)I was referring to the fact that their worship of money is being sated by the presence of that orange gibbon and his cronies and therefore they will do whatever it takes to hold onto it. Even if it means ignoring the law. Even it means destroying it altogether.
But, it is more than that. The present system is what allowed them to get to where they are in the first place. It is too far gone. However it is also too beholden to capitalism. That is the issue. One that we don't seem willing to address, and therefore cannot actually do more than patch things up a bit and hope it will hold out until we are all gone.
I don't like that option.
ancianita
(40,393 posts)Selling their souls to Mammon's money worshipping oligarchs of, by and for Mammon's mob boss of the Executive Branch. There's good capitalism, bad capitalism, and then there's Mammon capitalism.
We use different words but we generally agree on the big picture, which is the climate of fear and evil these suited fiends create in their economic/currency/market hell. By 2028 we'll be fighting to prevent a land whose entrance says,
Irish_Dem
(69,059 posts)They don't care who the front man is.
SunSeeker
(55,622 posts)These lawsuits against Trump are not frivolous. He has been losing almost all of them. That means they are meritorious--the opposite of frivolous.
The lawsuits Trump brings, on the the other hand, like his election lawsuits in 2020 (in which he literally lost every single one of over 60 lawsuits because he provided absolutely zero evidence of fraud), now THOSE are frivolous lawsuits.
NJCher
(39,923 posts)the one person who does not have to obey the law and for whom it is guaranteed there will be no repercussions for his illegal behavior.
I don't understand why anyone would want to do this. Why should any one person, particular someone of Donald Trump's ilk, be in a special class?
keroro gunsou
(2,261 posts)i mean, if a Democrat takes over as president they've screwed themselves... lest they know something we don't...
h2ebits
(871 posts)I think that it is a stupid thing to attempt by House Republicans but it will be challenged if successful and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Or, at least, that's my thought for the day.
PortTack
(35,613 posts)h2ebits
(871 posts)SSJVegeta
(451 posts)Or is it too early to tell?
bluestarone
(19,707 posts)How long could the supreme court play with THAT word? Jesus Christ!!!
Grins
(8,320 posts)The term Law n Order Republicans will never not be hilarious
Iamscrewed
(190 posts)Time to duck, run or fight. A fascist dictatorship is already upon us.
BidenRocks
(1,387 posts)should not be open to change by any branch.
That defeats the purpose, which is what they want.
Solly Mack
(94,893 posts)SunSeeker
(55,622 posts)And end up in SCOTUS. And it would be invalidated by a 7-2 decision (Thomas and Alito dissenting of course).
Congress cannot take away a court's ability to enforce its orders, and make it too expensive for Americans to petition their government (sue) for a redress of grievances under the 1st Amendment. It's basically getting rid of the judicial branch. If they want to do that, they need to amend the Constitution.
PortTack
(35,613 posts)Illegality of such a bill.
Dont panic
stay focused!
muriel_volestrangler
(103,522 posts)Actual police officers who will physically arrest government members and lock them up.