House GOP Bill Could Weaken Judges’ Power to Enforce Orders Against Trump Administration

A Republican-led House committee has advanced legislation that could significantly undermine federal judges' ability to hold the Trump administration in contempt for defying court orders — a move critics warn could allow unlawful actions by the executive branch to go unchecked.

The measure, approved late Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee, includes a provision that would block funding for the enforcement of contempt orders if a judge did not require plaintiffs to post a security bond when granting preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.

Republicans argue the provision is designed to discourage frivolous lawsuits. But Democrats and legal advocacy groups see it as a targeted attempt to shield former President Donald Trump from legal accountability, especially as he continues to push the boundaries of executive authority.

“Instead of supporting the judicial branch, this bill seeks to strip the courts of their power to hold the administration in contempt when the President violates court orders,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee.

The language of the bill is retroactive, meaning it would apply to past cases and could prevent courts from enforcing contempt rulings related to orders issued before the bill became law — so long as no bond was required.

One such example involves a previous case in which the Trump administration faced the possibility of contempt proceedings for allegedly violating a court order halting the deportation of certain migrants. That case, involving Judge James Boasberg, was paused by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If Boasberg were to resume those proceedings and issue a contempt ruling, the new bill would block funding for its enforcement.

Judge Boasberg had taken the unusual step of initiating criminal contempt proceedings — which could have led to the appointment of a special master to prosecute the case if the Justice Department declined to act.

A spokesperson for House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan pushed back on criticisms of the bill, stating that the provision aims to reinforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which allows courts to require security bonds to cover potential damages to parties wrongly enjoined by court orders.

“This is strictly about stopping frivolous lawsuits,” the spokesperson said.

But critics argue the practical effect of the provision is to make it prohibitively expensive for individuals and public interest groups to challenge executive actions in court. In fact, Trump issued an executive order earlier this year directing the Justice Department to request bonds in all legal challenges to his policies, regardless of case specifics. DOJ attorneys have followed through, in some cases requesting tens of thousands of dollars in bonds from plaintiffs.

Some judges have pushed back by setting nominal bond amounts, but under the House bill, if no bond is set at all, the judge would lose the ability to enforce compliance through contempt.

Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said the policy would effectively allow the administration to ignore judicial rulings. “The purpose of this is to prevent judges from enjoining what they found to be illegal behavior,” he said. “The bond being sought in some of these cases is almost unpayable by any plaintiff.”

The bill still faces several procedural and legal hurdles before becoming law. It is currently part of a larger reconciliation package, and it remains unclear whether it will survive scrutiny under Senate rules governing the budget reconciliation process — which limits the types of legislation that can bypass a filibuster.

There are also constitutional concerns about whether Congress is improperly interfering with the judiciary’s inherent authority to enforce its own orders. Democrats on the committee attempted to strip the provision from the reconciliation package but were voted down.

“This is a dangerous abuse of power,” said Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia. “MAGA Republicans are using a spending bill to protect Trump from being held accountable in court. They’re essentially saying that unless you can afford to pay up front, your rights can be trampled with no consequences.”