In the ongoing public discussion about whether the courts will try to rein in the Trump administration’s lawlessness, or will prevail in a resulting showdown if they do, the story that follows has been simmering below the surface for a couple of weeks.
I had the same initial intuition as one of Sam's: this obviously interferes with a court's long-recognized inherent constitutional authority to manage proceedings before it.
Beyond that, it's very sloppily drafted legislative language. "No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation" misunderstands the judicial power. The U.S. Marshals service enforces district court contempt orders, and it's an executive branch agency under DOJ. So, even if enacted, I don't think this language would actually bar enforcement. At most, it would bar a district judge from spending time writing a perfunctory order directing the Marshals to arrest and hale someone subject to a contempt order into court to answer for it.
I have two ideas on this puzzling attempt at judicial reform.
First, a lot of Trump's ideas are taken from the Heritahe Project 2025 playbook. So, do they explain anywhere a desire to go after contempt reform or injunctions?
IANAL but I looked through this 2025 essay by GianCarlo Canaparo (a Senior Legal Fellow at Heritage) makes the case against nationwide injunctions and suggests ways to curb them (with links to other articles). No mention of contempt reform that I could see.
My second thought is the time-worn 'cui bono'? Who benefits from jamming upon all current injunctions? The obvious place to look is the Trump family. Given their extensive business dealings, I have no idea what a next step would look like, but they might be constrained by some adverse injunctions somewhere.
I had the same initial intuition as one of Sam's: this obviously interferes with a court's long-recognized inherent constitutional authority to manage proceedings before it.
Beyond that, it's very sloppily drafted legislative language. "No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation" misunderstands the judicial power. The U.S. Marshals service enforces district court contempt orders, and it's an executive branch agency under DOJ. So, even if enacted, I don't think this language would actually bar enforcement. At most, it would bar a district judge from spending time writing a perfunctory order directing the Marshals to arrest and hale someone subject to a contempt order into court to answer for it.
I have two ideas on this puzzling attempt at judicial reform.
First, a lot of Trump's ideas are taken from the Heritahe Project 2025 playbook. So, do they explain anywhere a desire to go after contempt reform or injunctions?
IANAL but I looked through this 2025 essay by GianCarlo Canaparo (a Senior Legal Fellow at Heritage) makes the case against nationwide injunctions and suggests ways to curb them (with links to other articles). No mention of contempt reform that I could see.
https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/the-best-way-fix-nationwide-injunctions
My second thought is the time-worn 'cui bono'? Who benefits from jamming upon all current injunctions? The obvious place to look is the Trump family. Given their extensive business dealings, I have no idea what a next step would look like, but they might be constrained by some adverse injunctions somewhere.
Well. Two ideas that dead-ended. My morning!
Lawyering run amok
Just shit lawyering