Senate Republicans have quietly integrated a controversial clause into President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that could curtail federal courts’ ability to swiftly block executive actions. Under this amendment, plaintiffs must post a financial bond before seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against federal policies, lifting what’s been a largely symbolic requirement in disputes involving government actions. By shifting the cost burden to challengers, the change may deter lawsuits designed to halt policies until full legal review, especially if bonds are set exorbitantly.
This approach marks a shift from the House version of the bill, which would limit judges’ power to impose contempt orders on noncompliant officials. The Senate’s version, championed by Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, tightens the rules around immediate court interventions, making it harder to preemptively suspend government measures unless bond conditions are met.
Republican backers argue the mechanism is necessary to reign in what they view as judicial overreach. They point to previous Trump-era injunctions that temporarily halted policy rollouts nationwide, asserting that the bond requirement ensures balanced litigation and prevents frivolous court challenges. Additional provisions include funding judicial training and examining the financial impact of injunctions on taxpayers – an attempt to legitimise the move as reform rather than power-grab.
Critics, including Senate Democrat Dick Durbin, warn the provision risks eroding the constitutional separation of powers. They fear it could shield unlawful executive actions by raising the barrier to federal court intervention. Legal scholars also caution that retroactive application of bond requirements might make previously granted injunctions unenforceable, further weakening judicial oversight.
As the Senate moves to consider the One Big Beautiful Bill Act under budget reconciliation, with a simple majority vote, the inclusion of this clause underscores a broader strategic shift: embedding judicial reform within fiscal policy to bypass traditional debate thresholds. Whether it withstands Byrd Rule scrutiny remains uncertain. But what’s clear is that this bill doesn’t just reshape tax policy, it also redefines the boundaries of the judiciary’s power to check the executive.
