Senate Parliamentarian Blocks GOP Attempt to Shield Trump Administration from Lawsuits. A controversial provision in the Republican tax-and-spending bill, designed to severely restrict lawsuits against the Trump administration, has been ruled out of order by the Senate parliamentarian. This means the measure, which would have required exorbitant bonds for emergency court orders, will likely be removed, preventing the administration from circumventing legal challenges
Senate Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Act" included a controversial provision requiring exorbitant bonds for emergency court orders against the federal government. This measure, impacting temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, would effectively block lawsuits challenging federal actions by requiring plaintiffs to pre-pay all potential government costs and damages—a prohibitive sum likely exceeding the means of most challengers, including public interest groups. The Senate parliamentarian deemed this provision non-budgetary, jeopardizing its inclusion in the bill
Senate GOP's "One Big Beautiful Act" initially included a provision requiring exorbitant bond payments—potentially millions or billions of dollars—for emergency court orders against the Trump administration. This effectively silenced public interest groups and individual plaintiffs seeking temporary injunctions against actions like deportations, drilling bans, or other federal policies, by making legal challenges financially impossible. The Senate parliamentarian, however, ruled this provision violated Senate rules, likely preventing its inclusion in the final bill
Senate GOP's Tax Bill Provision Limiting Lawsuits Against Trump Administration Faces Removal. A controversial clause requiring exorbitant bonds for emergency court orders against the government could be struck down, preventing the administration from potentially ignoring court rulings and operating unchecked. The Senate parliamentarian ruled the provision violates budget reconciliation rules, jeopardizing its inclusion in the One Big Beautiful Act
Senate parliamentarian rules block GOP attempt to shield Trump administration from lawsuits. A provision in the Republican tax bill requiring large bonds for lawsuits against the government has been deemed non-budgetary, requiring 60 votes for passage. This effectively kills the measure, as Republicans lack the necessary votes to overcome Democratic opposition, jeopardizing the administration's efforts to bypass legal challenges using budget reconciliation
Senate Republicans' attempt to shield the Trump administration from lawsuits via a costly bond requirement in the One Big Beautiful Act is likely doomed. The Senate parliamentarian ruled the provision violates budget reconciliation rules, requiring 60 votes for passage—a threshold Republicans lack. With Democrats poised to utilize the Byrd Rule to remove this non-budgetary item, its removal during Senate debate is almost certain
Senator Merkley slams GOP's "Big Beautiful Betrayal" tax bill, citing Byrd Rule violations. The Senate Parliamentarian ruled against multiple provisions, prompting Democrats to challenge aspects harming working families and undermining Senate reconciliation rules
HuffPost questioned Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about a controversial GOP tax bill provision. This clause, slated for removal, would drastically restrict lawsuits against the Trump administration by requiring exorbitant bonds for emergency court orders. The Senate parliamentarian deemed it non-budgetary, jeopardizing its passage under reconciliation rules
Senator Grassley confirms the GOP tax bill's controversial injunction provision lacks both constitutional and statutory authority, highlighting its potential illegality. This provision, requiring exorbitant bonds for injunctions against the federal government, effectively blocks legal challenges to presidential actions
Senate GOP's Tax Bill Provision to Block Lawsuits Against Trump Administration Likely Removed. A controversial clause in the Republican tax bill, requiring exorbitant bonds for lawsuits against the federal government, is expected to be removed after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it violated Senate rules. This provision effectively prevented public interest groups from challenging Trump administration actions, a tactic they've successfully employed. The ruling, following objections that the clause was unrelated to budget reconciliation, necessitates a 60-vote threshold for passage—a hurdle Republicans cannot clear
Senate Republicans' attempt to restrict emergency court orders against the Trump administration faces defeat. A provision in their tax bill requiring massive bonds for injunctions against the government—effectively silencing legal challenges—has been ruled out of order by the Senate parliamentarian. This means the measure, which would hinder challenges to executive actions like deportations or environmental regulations, needs 60 votes to pass, making its removal highly likely. The ruling highlights the limitations on judicial power regarding national injunctions and the financial barriers the provision would create for plaintiffs seeking to hold the government accountable
For 20 years, HuffPost has relentlessly pursued truth. Support our vital journalism – your contribution keeps us fighting for the facts for the next 20 years
Unwavering commitment to factual reporting: delivering the unbiased news you deserve
Your continued support fuels our vital journalism. We're incredibly grateful for your past contributions, which strengthened our newsroom during challenging times. Now, more than ever, we need your help to continue delivering critical news and accountability reporting. Please join us again today
Unwavering, fact-based journalism: We deliver the truth everyone deserves
Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
For two decades, HuffPost has been fearless, unflinching, and relentless in pursuit of the truth. Support our mission to keep us around for the next 20 — we can’t do this without you.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
Asked again about this provision making it too expensive for public interest groups to be able to sue the Trump administration at all, Grassley said, “Well, it seems to me, if you don’t even have authority in the Constitution or in the laws, to have national injunctions, you shouldn’t even be asking that question!”
He walked off in a huff.
Source: Original Article