RELEASE: Friedman Leads 20 Members of Congress in Push to Strike Reconciliation Provision Undermining Court Authority

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, May 20, 2025, U.S. Congresswoman Laura Friedman (CA-30) is leading 20 Members of Congress in demanding the removal of Section 70302 from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, warning it would gut the federal judiciary’s ability to enforce court orders — and effectively allow individuals and institutions to defy the law with no consequences. 

The signatory list of 21 Members of Congress includes Friedman, Balint, Bonamici, Carson, Conaway, Crow,  Fields, Gottheimer, Hoyle, Ivey, Jayapal, Keating, Larson, Liccardo, Min, Pettersen, Schakowsky, Stansbury, Tlaib, Wasserman Schultz, and Williams. 

The provision would prohibit federal courts from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiff posts a financial bond at the beginning of the case — a requirement courts often waive in civil rights, public interest, and government-led litigation. The rule would apply retroactively, invalidating existing contempt orders and paralyzing the courts’ ability to act in ongoing cases. 

Lawmakers also warn the provision would hand unprecedented power to the Trump administration — or any future president — by stripping courts of their ability to hold executive branch officials accountable when they break the law. Even after courts issue injunction rulings, federal agencies could simply ignore them without consequence under the bill. In hundreds of ongoing cases, including school desegregation and civil rights enforcement, courts could be left powerless to compel compliance. 

“This is not merely a procedural concern, and this language has nothing to do with the federal budget. It strikes at the very core of judicial authority that is granted in our Constitution,” wrote Congressman Laura Friedman and 21 Members of Congress to Speaker Johnson. “This provision would significantly undermine the judiciary’s longstanding and constitutionally grounded authority to enforce contempt citations — a move that would weaken the separation of powers and pose serious risks to the rule of law in the United States.” 

RECONCILIATION STRIPS COURTS OF CORE ENFORCEMENT POWERS: 

• Section 70302 bars enforcement of contempt orders unless the plaintiff posted a bond at the outset of the case — a requirement routinely waived for public interest cases.
• Applies retroactively, impacting cases already in progress and contempt orders already issued.
• Opens the door for violators of federal injunctions — including civil rights offenders — to walk free based on a procedural technicality. 

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

Dear Speaker Johnson, 

We write to express our deep concern over Section 70302 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Rules Committee Print 119-3).1 This provision would significantly undermine the judiciary’s longstanding and constitutionally grounded authority to enforce contempt citations — a move that would weaken the separation of powers and pose serious risks to the rule of law in the United States. 

As written, Section 70302 would prohibit federal courts from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiff posted a bond at the outset of the case. Courts have long held discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) to waive such bonds, especially in public interest cases or when the United States is the defendant. By conditioning enforcement on the presence of a bond routinely waived by the courts, this provision would neutralize valid injunctions and leave courts powerless to act in the face of open defiance. This provision covers ongoing cases, effectively changing the law midstream, which would potentially cripple enforcement in cases where judges had no knowledge of the impending change in law and could not have required a bond in advance in order to comply with this new provision. Even those who have already been found to be in violation of the law may walk free of any consequence — not because of the merits of their case, but due to an arbitrary and retroactive restriction.  

This is not merely a procedural concern, and this language has nothing to do with the federal budget. It strikes at the very core of judicial authority that is granted in our Constitution. This provision would impact hundreds of cases, including many in which the government is the plaintiff. Currently, more than 130 school desegregation orders, ongoing civil rights cases, and critical regulatory cases could become unenforceable under this provision.2 Additionally, cases in which the government was not a party to the lawsuit, such as injunctions in trademark suits between private parties to protect intellectual property, could be left rudderless. Furthermore, courts could find themselves powerless to hold administrations — of either party — responsible for breaking the law, even after they have been found liable.  

The contempt power is not partisan. It is a fundamental component of judicial independence built by our Founding Fathers. Weakening it in this way threatens the balance of power upon which our democracy depends. 

We urge you to uphold the integrity and enforceability of our civil justice system by striking Section 70302 from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.  

Sincerely, 

[SIGNED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS] 

###