President Donald Trump’s recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a sweeping tax and spending package, has ignited controversy due to a provision that legal experts warn could significantly weaken the power of federal courts.

The contentious clause prohibits U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, from enforcing contempt citations against the government unless plaintiffs have posted a monetary bond—a rare requirement in government-related lawsuits.

Critics argue that this measure undermines the judiciary’s ability to enforce compliance with injunctions or restraining orders, especially in cases where individuals or groups challenge government policies. Legal scholars, such as UC law professor Rory Little, contend that contempt power is constitutionally intrinsic to courts and cannot be eliminated by legislation.

The provision’s retroactive nature raises further concerns, as it could render existing court orders against the Trump administration unenforceable—particularly those related to immigration, protection of sensitive data, and civil rights reforms.

Democratic lawmakers have criticized the measure, arguing it effectively neutralizes court rulings and enables executive overreach. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, however, defended the provision as a means to combat what he described as “the abusive use of nationwide injunctions.”

The bill, which narrowly passed the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025, in a 215–214–1 vote, now moves to the Senate for consideration. Some Republican senators have expressed intentions to seek modifications to the controversial provision.

As the legislation advances, debates over the balance of power among the branches of government and the safeguarding of judicial authority are expected to intensify.