longer.blue

BEWARE=SECTION 70302 Section 70302. Restriction on Enforcement. "No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act." Think about that. If you didn’t realize it yet, we are already engaged in Civil War II. It’s not Gray vs.Blue. It’s not one army against another. This is a war between right and wrong. It’s a war between truth and lies. It’s about democracy vs. authoritarianism. Whenever this bill is mentioned in the media or on social media, the main topic is always Medicaid/Medicare. Millions of us are opposed to cuts in Medicaid/Medicare, and rightly so. However, Section 70302 should be just as big of a concern to all of us. That section is designed to severely limit the ability of federal courts to enforce their own orders against the government, particularly by making it difficult to hold government officials in contempt if a financial bond was not required when the initial injunction or temporary restraining order was issued. Critics argue that Section 70302 would severely undermine the judiciary's power to enforce its orders, particularly against government officials. Since the U.S. government is typically exempt from posting bonds in such cases, this provision could effectively allow government entities to disregard court orders without facing consequences through contempt proceedings. In other words, Trump would be above the law. It would also affect the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court directly issues injunctions less frequently than lower federal courts, it does have the power to issue them and to hold parties in contempt for defying its orders. If the Supreme Court were to issue an injunction or restraining order without requiring a security bond (which is often waived for government entities under Rule 65(c)), Section 70302 could potentially strip the Court of its ability to enforce that order through contempt proceedings. A major concern is that this provision would make it significantly harder for courts to compel compliance from government officials and agencies. Since the U.S. government is generally exempt from posting bonds under Rule 65(c), this section could effectively allow executive branch entities to disregard court orders without facing the usual consequences of contempt, even if those orders originated from or were upheld by the Supreme Court. Critics argue that this provision is a direct assault on judicial independence and the separation of powers. The ability to enforce its orders is fundamental to a court's authority. By limiting this power, even if technically applying to "appropriated funds," it could render judicial rulings, including those from the highest court, essentially unenforceable in many critical contexts. The language of Section 70302 has been noted to apply retroactively, meaning it could impact injunctions and contempt orders issued even before the bill's enactment. This would create significant legal uncertainty and could retroactively weaken already established Supreme Court precedents or directives. Medicaid is an important issue, but we cannot allow Section 70302 to be included in whatever form of the bill that passes. I hope you will write to your Senators.