The Contempt Provision in the Billionaire Bailout Bill

Buried in republican billionaire bailout bill is a provision about contempt citations issued by judges. But does it actually do anything?

I looked up the language in the Billionaire Bailout Bill that addresses contempt citations. It says:

SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION OF FUNDS.

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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

Here is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) referenced in section 70302 above:

The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

That means that if the bill becomes law, the court would need to require the movants (the complaining party - like Abrego Garcia for example) to fork over money up front to cover potential costs of a contempt citation. But see the part I bolded that says “that the court considers proper”?

As things stand now, courts usually say that $0 is proper. But the Billionaire Bailout Bill says that the courts can no longer consider $0 to be proper, but nothing in the bill stops the courts from considering $1 to be a proper amount.

I asked Kel McClanahan from National Security Counselors about this, and he said “It’s performative bullshit to try and protect Trump from the consequences of his own illegality, but in true MAGA fashion it's not even effective so it's extra performative and extra bullshit.”

~AG