/r/50501 Mirror

992 readers

605 users here now

Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts

founded 3 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

204

CALL YOUR REPS AND SENATORS, WE MUST STOP THIS BILL!!! 202-224-3121 (lemmynsfw.com)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. House of Reps passed H.R. 1, the so-called One Big, Beautiful Bill Act that attacks civil liberties and cuts Medicaid by at least $600 billion, the largest cut in the program’s history. The reconciliation bill now moves to the Senate.

CALL YOUR REPS AND SENATORS! FIGHT THIS BILL! 202-224-3121

Originally Posted By u/VociferousVal At 2025-05-23 01:56:47 AM | Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Let's see the text. "Forbidding courts to charge..." Yeah. This is the same bullshit that conservative FB people eat up.

"I SAW a picture of text claiming some crazy shit! It's TRUE!"

A little digging:

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.

I cannot parse that. Anyone?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

This rule says that a U.S. court cannot spend government money to punish someone for disobeying a court order (like an injunction or a temporary restraining order) if the court didn’t require a security deposit (money guarantee) when it issued the order—as normally required by Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This applies to any such orders, no matter when they were issued—before, on, or after this rule was created.

In other words:

If a court gives an order to stop or require some action but skips the step of asking the person requesting the order to post a security (a form of financial protection), the court can’t use federal funds to enforce penalties for ignoring that order.

Example:

A company, GreenTech Inc., is about to release a new environmentally friendly engine. Another company, OldFuel Corp., sues them, claiming patent infringement. OldFuel asks the court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop GreenTech from launching the product.

The judge grants the TRO to pause the launch, but doesn’t require OldFuel to post a security deposit (which would normally protect GreenTech in case it turns out the order was wrong or unfair).

GreenTech believes the TRO is unfair and ignores it, going ahead with the launch.

OldFuel then asks the court to hold GreenTech in contempt for violating the TRO.

Under this new requirement:

Because the judge didn’t require OldFuel to post a security (as usually required under Rule 65(c)), the court is not allowed to spend federal money to enforce the contempt citation. That means the court can’t punish GreenTech for disobeying the TRO—at least not using government resources.

Why this matters:

The rule is another way to get around the courts and the rulings against all these illegal EOs by effectively preventing the courts from taking action on ignored injunctions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

This exactly. The post should have been removed for lack of clarity, they need to add their sources, ffs. Thank you for doing the digging.