GOP Moves to Shield Trump Administration From Contempt Rulings by Judges
The House Judiciary Committee has included a provision in a significant spending bill that critics say could limit judges’ ability to hold U.S. government officials in contempt of court. This would essentially provide the Trump administration with more flexibility to ignore certain court orders.
This provision, known as Section 70303, was added at the end of a 116-page legislative text approved by the committee last week as part of the fiscal year 2025 budget process, according to Roll Call.
The provision prevents courts from using federal funds to enforce contempt rulings against government officials who fail to comply with court orders unless plaintiffs post a monetary bond, which legal experts note is rarely required in cases challenging federal policies.
A House Judiciary Committee aide explained that the provision is aimed at “stopping frivolous lawsuits.”
However, Democrats argue that the measure would significantly weaken judicial authority, especially as the Trump administration has been openly critical of judges who issue rulings against its policies.
Two federal judges—James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court of Maryland—have suggested they may hold Trump administration officials in contempt in cases related to immigration.
Republicans, on the other hand, argue that these judges, along with others appointed by Democratic presidents, have overstepped their authority by issuing rulings that improperly limit the power of President Trump to lead the Executive Branch. Some, including Trump, have even called for impeachment proceedings against at least one judge, Boasberg.
A Republican lawmaker introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg after he blocked the Trump administration’s deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act in March.
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, criticized judges who, in his view, are impeding the president’s ability to fulfill his constitutional role, stating, “This is another example of a rogue judge overstepping his authority.”
Gill’s resolution accuses Boasberg of abusing his power by halting deportations of illegal immigrants under a wartime law established in 1798, which Trump recently used to remove members of a Venezuelan criminal gang from the U.S.
In a statement, Gill argued that Boasberg’s actions endanger national security and undermine judicial integrity, claiming the judge is interfering with the Executive Branch’s authority and the will of the American people.
Gill plans to discuss the matter with House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to proceed with the impeachment process through the committee, where such matters traditionally begin.
Regarding nationwide injunctions, Roll Call mentioned that Rule 65 of federal civil procedure states that judges can issue certain orders only if the requesting party provides security to cover potential costs. GOP critics argue that judges have not been adhering to this rule, and the new legislation aims to address that issue.
