I feel like the French had a solution 
this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
202 points (100.0% liked)
/r/50501 Mirror
990 readers
632 users here now
Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
The fact that there even is a bill to fight makes me fear for the future.
Too late to call your Congresspeople (House of Reps) since it already passed in the House.
Edit: Yes, to be clear, you can call your Senators.
You can call your senators tho.
This potentially could disadvantage regular citizens and activist groups, especially when they’re trying to challenge powerful actors, including the government itself.
Here’s why:
1. Security Bond Requirement Can Be a Barrier
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) requires that anyone requesting an injunction or temporary restraining order must post a bond or other security*l. This is meant to protect the other side (e.g., the government or a corporation) from losses if it turns out the court order was wrongfully issued.
But for regular people or groups without deep pockets, this bond can be expensive—sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if someone is trying to stop a government action they believe is unlawful (like a wrongful eviction, deportation, or environmental harm), they might not be able to afford the security, even if they have a strong case.
2. This Law Removes an Enforcement Option If No Security Is Posted
The part you asked about takes it further: if the court does issue an injunction or restraining order but doesn’t require a bond, then the court can’t spend government money to enforce it (e.g., by punishing violations through contempt proceedings).
So now:
*If a citizen gets a restraining order without posting a bond (maybe the judge waived it for fairness), and
*The government ignores the order, then
*The court can’t use federal funds to punish the government for violating it.
That severely limits the practical power of the order, especially against well-resourced or powerful parties.
In this case it's trying to be used to chill civil action against the government.
BuT tHeRe iS StIlL iMpEaChMeNt fRoM cOnGrEsS!!
Seemingly permanent GOP Senate majority: lol, lmao even.
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?
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.
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.