Contempt

As Der Furor's "One Big Beautiful Bill" slithers its way toward near-certain approval by a politically neutered Congress, there's been a huge amount of discussion about its effect on tax rates, the national debt, and the ability of the federal government to provide the protections and services Americans have come to expect. It's clear that the bulk of the tax cuts will benefit corporate America and the wealthiest citizens, and that those cuts will be paid for (to the extent they are) by reductions that will disproportionately fall on the middle and lower classes. What's less clear is what else might be buried in the thousand-plus pages of the bill*.

Alert readers have noted that the bill includes this measure:

"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."

What does this complex and opaque language mean? Reduced to basic terms, it would forbid courts from finding administration officials to be in contempt of court when they ignore judicial rulings.

Contempt of Court is a fairly simple concept. Essentially, it is what gives teeth to judicial actions, ensuring that failure to abide by a court's instructions will have negative consequences. If a traffic court levies a fine on you and you fail to pay it, you can be found to be in contempt of court and punished. If a divorce court orders you to pay child support and you don't do it, you can be found to be in contempt of court and punished. But if the One Big Beautiful Bill passes as written, no one in government can be held in contempt for ignoring a legal judgement. 

That's bad, but it comes on top of an earlier slap at the rule of law, which states that there is one person who already cannot be held in contempt** - the president. According to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Trump v. United States,

"... the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

You may be excused for wondering how far the president's "core constitutional powers" extend. Does he have a core constitutional power to accidentally deport someone to a grim prison in El Salvador and refuse to bring him home once a court orders him to do so? Does he have a core constitutional power to eliminate agencies established by Congress? Does he have a core constitutional power to use his authority to attack individuals, law firms, and universities or to spew out childish, often nearly incomprehensible social media posts?

When I went to school, shortly after the dinosaurs died out, our civics classes*** taught us about quaint concepts like checks and balances and the rule of law.  

I wish they still did. And that more people cared.

Have a good day, and hope that honor, dignity, and common sense prevail to eliminate the protection-from-contempt provision from the bill. The country is ours to save.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The "One Big Beautiful Bill" is an example of what Republicans used to detest as an "omnibus bill," one that consolidated a large number of individual measures into a bill so long and detailed that nobody really understood what was in it. Times change.

** Of court, anyhow.

*** Do we even have civics education any more? And if they do, I wonder if they teach the same lessons in red and blue states.