RELEASE: Friedman Leads 21 House Democrats Urging Senate to Strike Court-Limiting Provision from Reconciliation Bill

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, June 20, 2025, U.S. Congresswoman Laura Friedman (CA-30) led 21 Members of Congress urging Senate Majority Leader John Thune to remove Section 203 from the Senate’s version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, citing serious constitutional concerns and a likely violation of the Byrd Rule. 

Section 203 would bar federal courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the federal government unless plaintiffs post a financial bond — a requirement courts routinely waive in public interest litigation. This provision would gut the judiciary’s ability to halt unlawful government action and would place an overwhelming burden on everyday Americans seeking justice. The members also stress that Section 203 does not meet reconciliation standards under the Byrd Rule and urge Leader Thune to follow through on his public commitment not to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian should they rule the provision out of order.

“Courts could find themselves forced to require absurdly large bond amounts, even when the government has clearly violated the law, or be unable to immediately require a stop to unlawful action. That would leave our courts nearly powerless to hold administrations — of either party — responsible for breaking the law,” wrote Congressman Laura Friedman and 21 Members of Congress to Senate Majority Leader Thune.

RECONCILIATION STRIPS COURTS OF CORE ENFORCEMENT POWERS: 

• Section 203 prohibits federal courts from issuing preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against the United States government unless the judge required a plaintiff to post a bond at the beginning of the case — something very commonly waived in public interest cases.
• Instructs judges to base the amount of bonds demanded of plaintiffs on the costs the federal government would bear from being restrained.
• Threatens to make it prohibitively expensive for individuals to hold the federal government accountable for unlawful and damaging actions.
• Would likely create a chilling effect on potential litigants who have been wronged by illegal government action, but who do not have the necessary resources to post a massive bond.

The signatory list of 22 Members of Congress includes Friedman (CA-30), Auchincloss (MA-4), Barragán (CA-44), Bera (CA-6), Cisneros (CA-31), Delaney (MD-6), Fernández (NM-3), Garcia (CA-42), Goodlander (NH-2), Hoyle (OR-4), Jacobs (CA-51), Landsman (OH-1), Liccardo (CA-16), Lieu (CA-36), Min (CA-47), Moulton (MA-6), Morrison (MN-3), Norton (DC), Peters (CA-50), Pocan (WI-2), Stansbury (NM-1), Tlaib (MI-12).

Full text of the letter sent to Speaker Johnson can be found here and below: 

June 20, 2025

The Honorable John Thune

Majority Leader

United States Senate

Room S-230, The Capitol

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Leader Thune,

As the Senate considers the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we write to respectfully urge you to strike Section 203 of the Senate Judiciary Committee title of the bill, which threatens to fundamentally undermine the longstanding role of our courts defined by our Constitution. Additionally, we urge you to follow through on your stated commitment not to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian, should they, as expected, rule this provision out of order. 

Section 203 prohibits federal courts from issuing a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against the United States government unless the judge required a plaintiff to post a bond at the beginning of the case — something very commonly waived in public interest cases or when the United States is the defendant. This provision threatens to make it prohibitively expensive for individuals to hold the federal government accountable for unlawful and damaging actions. Courts could find themselves forced to require absurdly large bond amounts, even when the government has clearly violated the law, or be unable to immediately require a stop to unlawful action. That would leave our courts nearly powerless to hold administrations — of either party — responsible for breaking the law. It is also highly likely to create a chilling effect on potential litigants who have been wronged by illegal government action, but who do not have the necessary resources to post a massive bond.

There is also broad concern that this provision does not meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule. According to a former Director of Budget and Appropriations for a previous Republican Senate Majority Leader, a similar provision in the House-passed version of the bill “really is beyond the pale for a budget reconciliation bill,” and there is “no way” the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could estimate its budget or financial impacts. 

Last month, Members of the House of Representatives wrote to Speaker Johnson raising concerns about the inclusion of a similar provision, Section 70302, in the House-passed version of the bill.

As the Senate considers this legislation, we strongly urge you to uphold the historical role of our courts, and the integrity and enforceability of our civil justice system by striking Section 203 from the Senate Judiciary Committee title of the bill and following through on your stated commitment to adhere to the ruling of the Parliamentarian, should they deem the provision out of order. 

Protecting the independence of our courts and the balance of powers enshrined in the Constitution should be a goal we all strive to accomplish. 

Sincerely,

[SIGNED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS]

###