Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(151,641 posts)
Thu May 1, 2025, 07:18 PM Yesterday

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 administration’s 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 Wednesday’s 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 court’s 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

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Power of judges to hold Trump administration in contempt may be undermined with filibuster-proof GOP proposal (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Yesterday OP
Frivolous Lawsuits? Chasstev365 Yesterday #1
The GOP uses the law to protect themselves and gain power and money. Irish_Dem Yesterday #2
Francis Wilhoit: markodochartaigh Yesterday #11
Indeed. OldBaldy1701E 12 hrs ago #16
"And, what is giving these conservatives the power to do that?" The felon's majority. ancianita 8 hrs ago #20
I was going for a more 'base' answer, but you are correct. OldBaldy1701E 6 hrs ago #21
You're right. The base drive of this majority is Mammon. Selling out. Being "on the take." ancianita 3 hrs ago #23
Trump is just the sleazy salesman, the GOP is all in for a fascist dictatorship. Irish_Dem Yesterday #3
A lawsuit a plaintiff has won is by definition not a frivolous lawsuit. SunSeeker 20 hrs ago #14
They are contributing to making trump NJCher Yesterday #4
rather short-sighted keroro gunsou 14 hrs ago #15
The Judicial Branch is the third leg of our democracy. . . . h2ebits Yesterday #5
Absolutely...this is overreach by the legislative branch. It won't stand PortTack 11 hrs ago #17
Thanks for your support. I'm not an attorney but the bloviating has long since gotten ridiculous. h2ebits 10 hrs ago #19
Does this bill likely have the votes in the house to pass? SSJVegeta Yesterday #6
There is one of them words i hate. (FRIVOLOUS) bluestarone Yesterday #7
All according the "Tyrant's Handbook" Grins Yesterday #8
Here it comes Iamscrewed Yesterday #9
The triad of checks and balances BidenRocks Yesterday #10
... Solly Mack 23 hrs ago #12
That bill is about as unconstitutional as it gets. It would immediately be challenged. SunSeeker 20 hrs ago #13
Thank you for the informed post! It's really important that we understand what they are up to, but also the PortTack 11 hrs ago #18
What worries me is who the courts can get to physically enforce their rulings muriel_volestrangler 3 hrs ago #22
Me too, so I researched it, and courts can deputize local law enforcement. SunSeeker 2 hrs ago #24

Chasstev365

(5,397 posts)
1. Frivolous Lawsuits?
Thu May 1, 2025, 07:28 PM
Yesterday

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)
2. The GOP uses the law to protect themselves and gain power and money.
Thu May 1, 2025, 07:32 PM
Yesterday

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)
11. Francis Wilhoit:
Thu May 1, 2025, 09:38 PM
Yesterday


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)
16. Indeed.
Fri May 2, 2025, 10:26 AM
12 hrs ago

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.

OldBaldy1701E

(7,748 posts)
21. I was going for a more 'base' answer, but you are correct.
Fri May 2, 2025, 04:28 PM
6 hrs ago

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

(40,396 posts)
23. You're right. The base drive of this majority is Mammon. Selling out. Being "on the take."
Fri May 2, 2025, 07:13 PM
3 hrs ago

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)
3. Trump is just the sleazy salesman, the GOP is all in for a fascist dictatorship.
Thu May 1, 2025, 07:34 PM
Yesterday

They don't care who the front man is.

SunSeeker

(55,623 posts)
14. A lawsuit a plaintiff has won is by definition not a frivolous lawsuit.
Fri May 2, 2025, 01:42 AM
20 hrs ago

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)
4. They are contributing to making trump
Thu May 1, 2025, 07:37 PM
Yesterday

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)
15. rather short-sighted
Fri May 2, 2025, 07:37 AM
14 hrs ago

i mean, if a Democrat takes over as president they've screwed themselves... lest they know something we don't...

h2ebits

(871 posts)
5. The Judicial Branch is the third leg of our democracy. . . .
Thu May 1, 2025, 07:52 PM
Yesterday

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.

h2ebits

(871 posts)
19. Thanks for your support. I'm not an attorney but the bloviating has long since gotten ridiculous.
Fri May 2, 2025, 11:42 AM
10 hrs ago

bluestarone

(19,707 posts)
7. There is one of them words i hate. (FRIVOLOUS)
Thu May 1, 2025, 08:24 PM
Yesterday

How long could the supreme court play with THAT word? Jesus Christ!!!

Grins

(8,320 posts)
8. All according the "Tyrant's Handbook"
Thu May 1, 2025, 08:42 PM
Yesterday
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers!” - William Shakespeare's play, Henry VI, Part 2.

The term “Law n’ Order” Republicans will never not be hilarious

BidenRocks

(1,388 posts)
10. The triad of checks and balances
Thu May 1, 2025, 09:34 PM
Yesterday

should not be open to change by any branch.
That defeats the purpose, which is what they want.

SunSeeker

(55,623 posts)
13. That bill is about as unconstitutional as it gets. It would immediately be challenged.
Fri May 2, 2025, 01:37 AM
20 hrs ago

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)
18. Thank you for the informed post! It's really important that we understand what they are up to, but also the
Fri May 2, 2025, 10:53 AM
11 hrs ago

Illegality of such a bill.

Don’t panic…stay focused!

muriel_volestrangler

(103,522 posts)
22. What worries me is who the courts can get to physically enforce their rulings
Fri May 2, 2025, 06:49 PM
3 hrs ago

Actual police officers who will physically arrest government members and lock them up.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Power of judges to hold T...