Oppose Limits on Court Rulings in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act - Removed from Bill (UPDATED 7/1)

Updates

July 1, 2025: The Senate has passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 50-51, with J.D. Vance providing the tie-break YES vote. The final version of the bill did not include provisions limiting court rulings.

June 26, 2025: The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that the provision in H.R. 1 that limits court rulings violates the Byrd rule. Senate Republicans must now revise their bill or disregard decades of legislative precedent and override the parliamentarian’s Byrd rulings.

June 13, 2025: The Senate Judiciary committee has removed the House bill’s contempt of court provision from their proposed version of the bill, but it added new language that still limits a court’s ability to issue temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. The bill text may still change further as the Senate committee amendment process continues.

May 22, 2025: With a 214-215 vote, the House narrowly passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, H.R. 1, with all Democrats and two Republicans – Massie (KY) and Davidson (OH) – voting against it. The legislation now moves to the Senate for consideration.

Republicans in the House Judiciary committee tucked a provision into the partisan budget reconciliation bill, now officially titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, that will limit the authority of federal judges to hold U.S. government officials in contempt of court. The proposal aims to defund the enforcement of contempt of court citations issued against those who fail to comply with the court’s injunctions or temporary restraining orders. The language of the provision is also retroactive, meaning it will cover contempt orders issued before this bill is enacted.

This provision is designed to limit the power of federal judges to hold government officials accountable. This comes after the Trump administration has continued to defy court orders and vocally criticize the federal judges who have ruled against their actions. Judge James Boasberg, who issued an order halting the transfer of migrants to an El Salvador prison without due process, signaled consideration of contempt proceedings when the administration ignored his injunction. This provision would defund any enforcement of such proceedings.

House Republicans have already moved to pass legislation to repeal the authority of a federal judge to issue nationwide injunctions. Now they are attempting to strip the federal courts of another vital power to allow the executive branch to freely defy the law and the Constitution. Demand your representatives oppose this dangerous breach of our system of checks and balances and protect the independent authority of the judicial system.