WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats forced the removal of a provision in Republicans’ sweeping domestic policy bill that sought to restricted the power of courts to block federal government policies with injunctions or restraining orders.
Democrats are challenging a broad range of provisions in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” for compliance with Senate budget rules that Republicans are relying on to bypass the 60-vote hurdle in the chamber to advance most legislation.
A Democratic aide on the Senate Budget Committee confirmed that Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, the in-house referee, ruled the provision did not comply with the “Byrd rule,” which says provisions must be directly related to taxes or spending.
Senate Republicans added the provision in the wake of a flurry of federal court rulings that have stymied President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda since he took office, including by blocking some of his most aggressive uses of executive power in pursuing his hard-line immigration crackdown and downsizing of federal agencies.
Trump and his allies have harshly criticized judges who have ruled against the administration. Although nationwide injunctions have only become commonplace in recent years, Trump is not the only president to have been frustrated by them, with the Biden and Obama administrations both suffering similar fates on various fronts.
The language added to the bill would have required anyone seeking an injunction to pay a fee that would be equal to “the costs and damages sustained by the federal government” if it were to ultimately win the case. On major national policies, that amount could be in the billions of dollars and would deter people from filing lawsuits, legal experts said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, of Illinois, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, described it in a statement as an attempt “to limit the ability of individuals and organizations to challenge lawless Trump Administration executive actions by putting those potential plaintiffs on the hook for millions of dollars.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., celebrated the decision to strike the provision.
“Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump’s contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,” Schumer said in a statement. “It was nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored this nation since its founding, and a brazen attempt crown Trump king. But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision.”
The parliamentarian’s ruling means that under Senate rules, the provision is subject to the 60-vote threshold. Republicans can still try to add it in, but they have 53 seats and Democrats have enough votes to block it.
A spokesperson for Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, slammed Democrats for challenging the provision, saying it shows they are clinging to an “open borders” mindset, referring to the judges who have blocked parts of Trump’s immigration and deportation policies.
“Republicans are committed to enforcing the rule of law, and will continue using all available avenues to secure our borders, clean up the mess left by the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous policies and ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards,” the Grassley spokesperson said.
House Republicans passed a different version of the provision in their bill. It would have undercut the ability of courts to hold government officials in contempt if they refuse to comply with a court order. Some legal experts said the provision was likely unconstitutional.
The two chambers will have to settle on a single bill before it can reach Trump’s desk, which congressional Republicans are aiming to do so by July 4.
The Trump administration still has another avenue to rein in nationwide injunctions: It currently has a case pending at the Supreme Court to be decided in coming days seeking to narrow the scope of rulings that have blocked a contentious policy to end automatic birthright citizenship.
Frank Thorp V contributed.
