New language added to President Donald Trump‘s “One Big Beautiful Bill” aims to restrict the ability of judges to block government policies through judicial rulings unless the party suing posts a bond to cover costs should the ruling be overturned.
Why It Matters
Many of the policies Trump has sought to implement via executive order have been held up in court amid legal challenges since he returned to office earlier this year. Judges have issued preliminary injunctions to temporarily pause some policies, awaiting final rulings about whether or not the orders are legal.
If this provision becomes law, it could give Trump—and future presidents, regardless of their political party—a lifeline in the legal system as courts continue reviewing executive orders. One legal analyst, however, told Newsweek the measure could undermine “equal access to justice.”
What to Know
Senator Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the committee’s proposed reconciliation text this week, including the measure, which would limit a judge’s abilities to implement preliminary injunctions unless the plaintiff posts bond.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
The bill will “enforce the existing, lawful requirement that courts impose a bond upfront when attempting to hit the government with a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order that results in costs and damages ultimately sustained by American taxpayers,” his office wrote in a statement.
“The Judiciary Committee’s provisions provide historic investments to strengthen our nation’s border security and immigration system, support local law enforcement and protect American families,” Grassley wrote. “I look forward to helping turn this legislation into law and deliver on President Trump’s promise of a secure border for years to come.”
Newsweek reached out to Grassley’s office for comment via email.
The Senate has spent recent weeks reviewing and debating the spending bill, which includes a number of provisions to allow Trump and Republicans to significantly overhaul tax and social policy.
The House of Representatives passed a version of the bill in May, which included a provision to limit the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions—a measure often deployed by judges to help enforce compliance through either fines or jail time.
Republicans have repeatedly voiced frustrations with the judiciary when rulings have gone against the Trump administration, creating legal gridlock and slowing the administration’s ability to enact a number of new policies and initiatives, such as Trump’s mass deportations.
What People Are Saying
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek on Friday: “I understand that Congressional Republicans are unhappy with judges issuing injunctive relief against the Trump administration, but changing the rules to make it more difficult for litigants raising righteous constitutional challenges is not the answer. Financial roadblocks like this will make civil rights litigation, especially by public interest groups, more challenging. We shouldn’t put a price tag on our constitutional rights. Doing so undermines equal access to justice, when there is already a perception that the rich and powerful are treated differently in our courts.”
Grassley wrote in a Fox News op-ed: “The Judiciary Committee’s provisions provide historic investments to strengthen our nation’s border security and immigration system, support local law enforcement and protect American families. “I look forward to helping turn this legislation into law and deliver on President Trump’s promise of a secure border for years to come.”
What Happens Next
It’s unclear whether the bill has enough support to pass the Senate or whether the parliamentarian will allow the measure to stand. In order to pass through reconciliation, which would allow the bill to surpass the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome, the parliamentarian must rule that any measure must be budgetary in nature.
Update 6/13/2025 5:10 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
