Senate parliamentarian faults Republicans' plan to limit judges' power

By Nate Raymond

June 23 (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate official has concluded that a Republican-drafted provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies violates budgetary rules.

The Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, advised over the weekend that the provision ran afoul of a Senate rule governing what can be included in budget reconciliation legislation that can be passed with a simple-majority vote and would instead need to be subject to a 60-vote threshold if it remained in the bill.

Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, intend to use complex budget rules to pass the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" with a simple majority vote.

The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee. Her decision could spell doom for the provision's inclusion in the ultimate legislation Congress passes because it would allow Democrats to challenge the vote on the floor and require Republicans to muster 60 votes to pass it. Congressional leaders hope to enact the overall bill in the coming days so Trump can sign it into law before July 4.

The courts-related provision in the Senate version of the bill would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned.

The bond requirement differs from one tucked into the version of the bill the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed in May that would curb courts' power by curtailing the ability of judges to hold officials in contempt if they violate injunctions.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday hailed the parliamentarian's assessment, saying Republicans had tried to "write Donald Trump’s contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy."

The provision was drafted by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is led by Senator Chuck Grassley. He had argued the provision would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that parties seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned.

Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones.

Grassley in a statement on Sunday said Republicans are committed to using all available avenues to "ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards."

Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 largely along party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure.

A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items.

Read more:

US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill