Senate keeps provision for curbing court orders in Trump bill
Some fellow Republicans in the narrowly divided Congress have said they would oppose the bill over the provision or that it would be removed through a parliamentary maneuver. But its inclusion in the Senate draft reflects the support of leadership to include and defend it.
Legislation would require litigants to post bonds before courts could enforce orders
The provision would require judges to collect bonds from litigants challenging the government before blocking policies through injunctions or temporary restraining orders. Without a bond, the provision would prevent judges from enforcing their orders through contempt proceedings.
Judges have always been able to collect bonds in civil lawsuits, essentially to ensure that defendants are reimbursed if they eventually win their cases. But judges traditionally don't collect bonds in cases against the government because the disputes are over policy rather than money like in a lawsuit between two businesses.
Trump and his Republican allies would like to change that. He signed a memo in March directing the Justice Department to ask for bonds in all civil cases against the administration.
Judges have temporarily blocked dozens of his policies. If the legislation were enacted, it would undo those blocks until judges set bonds.
Bonds could reach trillions of dollars in cases against government
Judges could set a nominal bond of $1, according to legal experts. But if they set a larger bond that litigants couldn't afford, judges wouldn't be able to enforce their orders and the Trump administration could ignore them, experts said.
In February, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan refused a request from Trump's White House Office of Management Budget to require a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits when she blocked the government from freezing all federal grants. She said it could have required trillions of dollars because that was how much was at stake in the case but that OMB would suffer no monetary damage from the case.
"The court declines," Alikhan wrote.
Some GOP lawmakers opposed the provision they weren't aware was in House-passed bill
If the Senate changes the legislation, the House would have to vote on the bill again. Some GOP lawmakers have voiced opposition to the provision at raucous town halls.
Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, said May 27 he was unaware of the provision and didn't support it when he voted for the bill. The House approved the bill on a 215-214 vote, so any potential loss of support could hurt the bill's chances.
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, said May 30 the bond provision "will not be" in the Senate-approved bill because she expected it to be removed by the parliamentarian under a rule requiring everything in the legislation to have an impact on the budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
8 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Assisted dying: Medical students voice opposition as some MPs urge vote delay
Hundreds of medical students have voiced their opposition to an assisted dying law, as dozens of Labour MPs called for this week's vote on the issue to be delayed. It is currently expected the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will have its third reading on Friday, with MPs voting to either send it through to the House of Lords or to stop it progressing any further. It would be the first vote on the overall Bill to take place since November, when the proposed legislation passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 on a historic day which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales. But, days ahead of third reading, a group of Labour MPs opposed to the Bill have written to Commons leader Lucy Powell asking for more time to scrutinise a Bill they brand as 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. They added that it 'alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from Parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future secretaries of state for health'. They also raised concerns that MPs might not have a copy of the final Bill by the time they vote, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning. The MPs, including Dame Meg Hiller, wrote: 'We implore you as the Leader of the House to allocate more Parliamentary time to the scrutiny of this Bill, the valid concerns that members have about its implementation, and the consequences it could have on vulnerable populations.' Their letter came as medical students sent their own to MPs, citing concerns about the Bill. The student doctors, from universities across the UK, said: 'We do not oppose dignified death – far from it. We oppose a Bill that risks offering death in place of care, that widens health inequalities, that places vulnerable patients in danger, and that reshapes the ethical foundation that our profession is built upon without any clear support. 'As future doctors, we may not yet be the voice of this profession – but we will be. And we are asking to be heard.' But doctor and MP Simon Opher, who backs the Bill, said it is 'no surprise that medical students, like GPs and most other professionals, have a range of opinions on assisted dying'. He referenced one survey he said had been shared with him and showed a majority of medical students supported assisted dying in cases of terminal illness and unbearable suffering. The Bill's sponsor, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has repeatedly stated that her proposed legislation has been strengthened since it was first introduced last year, insisting it is subject to robust safeguards. As it stands, the Bill would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the Bill last year, but said the Government remains neutral on the issue. Both Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood voted against. Last week, a majority of MPs approve a new clause, tabled by Dame Meg, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adults patients before they have raised it was voted down. A ban on advertising assisted dying should the Bill pass into law was also supported.
Rhyl Journal
9 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Assisted dying: Medical students voice opposition as some MPs urge vote delay
It is currently expected the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will have its third reading on Friday, with MPs voting to either send it through to the House of Lords or to stop it progressing any further. It would be the first vote on the overall Bill to take place since November, when the proposed legislation passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 on a historic day which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales. But, days ahead of third reading, a group of Labour MPs opposed to the Bill have written to Commons leader Lucy Powell asking for more time to scrutinise a Bill they brand as 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'. They added that it 'alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from Parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future secretaries of state for health'. They also raised concerns that MPs might not have a copy of the final Bill by the time they vote, as some outstanding amendments will still be being considered on Friday morning. The MPs, including Dame Meg Hiller, wrote: 'We implore you as the Leader of the House to allocate more Parliamentary time to the scrutiny of this Bill, the valid concerns that members have about its implementation, and the consequences it could have on vulnerable populations.' Their letter came as medical students sent their own to MPs, citing concerns about the Bill. The student doctors, from universities across the UK, said: 'We do not oppose dignified death – far from it. We oppose a Bill that risks offering death in place of care, that widens health inequalities, that places vulnerable patients in danger, and that reshapes the ethical foundation that our profession is built upon without any clear support. 'As future doctors, we may not yet be the voice of this profession – but we will be. And we are asking to be heard.' But doctor and MP Simon Opher, who backs the Bill, said it is 'no surprise that medical students, like GPs and most other professionals, have a range of opinions on assisted dying'. He referenced one survey he said had been shared with him and showed a majority of medical students supported assisted dying in cases of terminal illness and unbearable suffering. The Bill's sponsor, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, has repeatedly stated that her proposed legislation has been strengthened since it was first introduced last year, insisting it is subject to robust safeguards. As it stands, the Bill would allow terminally-ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer voted in favour of the Bill last year, but said the Government remains neutral on the issue. Both Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood voted against. Last week, a majority of MPs approve a new clause, tabled by Dame Meg, to ensure medics cannot raise the topic of assisted dying with under-18s. Her separate amendment to prevent health workers from bringing up the issue with adults patients before they have raised it was voted down. A ban on advertising assisted dying should the Bill pass into law was also supported.
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
US EPA to stop enforcing violations against fossil fuel companies, CNN reports
June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has told staff to stop enforcing violations against fossil fuel companies, CNN reported on Monday, citing multiple sources. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report. "While the last administration targeted the oil and gas industry and crippled the American worker to serve their climate zealotry, the Trump EPA's enforcement work is firmly rooted in the rule of law," an EPA spokesperson said, calling CNN's story "fake news narrative".
