GOP Set To Protect Trump Admin From Rogue Judges’ Contempt Rulings
A controversial measure tucked into the House Judiciary Committee’s draft of a major federal spending bill is drawing sharp criticism from legal experts and Democrats who say it could seriously weaken the courts’ ability to enforce rulings against the U.S. government.
The provision—Section 70303—appears at the tail end of a 116-page budget proposal approved by the committee last week as part of the fiscal year 2025 resolution process, Roll Call reported.
The language in question would prevent courts from using federal funds to carry out contempt orders against government officials who ignore judicial rulings—unless plaintiffs post a bond in accordance with federal civil procedure rules. That bond requirement, legal analysts say, is rarely imposed in cases dealing with federal policies and could set an unusually high bar for those seeking to hold the government accountable.
A committee aide defended the provision, telling Roll Call it was “basically to stop frivolous lawsuits.”
Democrats, however, argue that the change is part of a broader strategy to shield the Trump administration from legal consequences as it escalates conflicts with the judiciary. President Donald Trump and his allies have increasingly criticized federal judges who block his policies, especially on immigration.
Two such judges—James E. Boasberg in D.C. and Paula Xinis in Maryland—have suggested they may hold officials in contempt in separate immigration-related cases.
Republicans argue those judges, and others appointed by Democratic presidents, have exceeded their authority by hindering the president’s ability to execute the law. Some GOP lawmakers have gone even further: Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, has introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg.
According to Fox News, Gill’s resolution accuses Boasberg of exceeding his constitutional role by halting deportation flights authorized under the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798. The Trump administration invoked the statute to remove Venezuelan nationals tied to Tren de Aragua, a gang designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
“Chief Judge Boasberg required President Trump to turn around planes midair that had aliens associated with Tren De Aragua,” the impeachment resolution states. “This conduct jeopardizes the safety of the nation, represents an abuse of judicial power, and is detrimental to the orderly functioning of the judiciary.”
Gill spoke with Fox News Digital before submitting the resolution and emphasized his intent to work through the proper channels. “I’ll be talking to [Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio] about it,” he said. “I think the best way to do this…is to go through the judiciary committee, which is where impeachment of judges runs through.”
The broader debate has also brought renewed focus to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows judges to issue temporary restraining orders or injunctions if a bond is posted to cover potential damages if the order is later found to be unjustified. Republicans say courts have frequently ignored that requirement, and they claim Section 70303 would correct the imbalance.
Critics counter that the provision undermines the judiciary’s independence and could allow executive officials to act without fear of legal accountability, effectively blunting one of the few remaining checks on presidential power.