- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
A provision “hidden” in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders.
“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,” the provision in the bill, which is more than 1,000 pages long, says.
The provision “would make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable,” Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. “It serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts.”
It’d be a shame if the Supreme Court found the whole bill unconstitutional cause of this one line and they wasted their one chance to pass a bill.
Literally their constitutionally mandated job, though at least the two usual suspects say otherwise and would dissent.
Even those two have ruled against the marmalade molester in at least one instance when it came to undermining judicial power.
There is a concept of severability, which has precedent. They would not call the whole bill unconstitutional, just the infringing part.
As the clause is 1000 pages long, the whole Act is likely be declared void.
And I imagine they are motivated not do so given it basically shuts down their power.
Nah, it’s the perfect position, be able look like you’re pushing back while complaining you don’t have the power to do it. A certain political party perfected that tactic.
Who would have standing to bring a case?
Every citizen who relies on or expects the supreme court to do their job, because without it, well, no one will ever have standing for anything.