Issue One urges the removal of reconciliation provisions that undermine judicial independence and the rule of law

As the Senate considers H.R.1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Issue One released the following statement from Legislative Director Jamie Neikrie highlighting a concerning provision of the bill that would severely restrict the authority of federal courts:

“Our constitutional democracy depends on the separation of powers among three co-equal branches of government. This system of checks and balances ensures that no official is above the law — and that the judiciary has the authority to uphold the rule of law when it is threatened.

“Section 70302 of the pending legislation would dangerously weaken that authority by making it harder for a court to hold the government in contempt and compel compliance with lawful rulings. Worse, Section 70302 — which isn’t relevant to budgetary policy — applies retroactively, nullifying thousands of existing court orders and emboldening government actors to defy judicial authority without consequence.

“This isn’t about party line politics. It’s about upholding the independence of the judiciary at a time when it is under attack. Senators from both parties should reject this attempt to shield public officials from accountability.”

Background

On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives passed a budget reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, by a vote of 215-214. Passed under a budget reconciliation process — which only requires a simple majority — the bill makes sweeping changes to Medicaid and other safety net programs, as well as executing a series of tax reforms.

Sec. 70302 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, however, does not concern fiscal policy. It states: “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”

Put plainly, this provision would require anyone suing the government to post a financial bond before courts could use contempt powers to enforce injunctions or restraining orders against unlawful government conduct. Because plaintiffs seeking these court orders rarely have the resources to post a bond, it has long been the precedent of courts to choose to set the bond at zero.

Moving forward, federal courts could choose to set a negligible bond of $1 to comply with this policy. But that’s not why it’s in the reconciliation bill. Instead, the provision would apply retroactively to all temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and even permanent injunctions ever issued, rendering them unenforceable. Notably, this is true for the 186 and counting rulings pausing actions by the Trump Administration, immediately lifting all existing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions in place.