Tonight the House Judiciary Committee released its reconciliation bill, and it includes a provision (h/t Courtney Buble) that purports to restrict the power of the federal courts to enforce their injunctions and temporary restraining orders with contempt:
Thank you for your post. Is it correct to interpret sec 70302 as meaning "“……….., no security that follows FRCP Rule 65c, ……”. Many Democrat Congress people and activists, seem to take sec 70302 as meaning “no security”, so judges can just re-issue injunctions with nominal bonds, rather than bonds that compensate defendants for costs if injunctions are ruled wrong. What is happening here? Have I missed something?
Thank you for your article. The provision encourages overt defiance of the court and violates separation of powers. Outrageous.
Great, but what’s the takeaway for a Fed Courts exam in two days….?
Thank you for your post. Is it correct to interpret sec 70302 as meaning "“……….., no security that follows FRCP Rule 65c, ……”. Many Democrat Congress people and activists, seem to take sec 70302 as meaning “no security”, so judges can just re-issue injunctions with nominal bonds, rather than bonds that compensate defendants for costs if injunctions are ruled wrong. What is happening here? Have I missed something?