The sweeping tax-and-spending bill that would enact President Trump's policy agenda includes a provision that critics said would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders, our colleague Tom Hals reports.
The one-sentence provision in the 1,100-page bill prevents federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiffs have posted a monetary bond, which rarely happens in cases against the government—a change the Trump administration said would deter frivolous lawsuits. It applies retroactively.
Jenna Greene parses the provision in her latest On The Case column, with critics telling her the measure would make it easier for government officials on the losing end to violate injunctions and temporary restraining orders without worrying about being held in contempt–punishment that can include fines or even jail time.
Those worries may be overblown, Greene writes, at least for cases pending against the Trump administration and any future cases where the provision might apply should it become law. In most instances, courts could simply dissolve pending injunctions and reissue them with a bond set as low as $1.
But the provision, enforced retroactively, could render permanent injunctions in long-resolved cases unenforceable through contempt proceedings.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário