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.”

  • Archangel@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    ·
    14 hours ago

    You can’t legislate Constitutional overrides. Legislation either conforms to the Constitution, or it is declared invalid and gets sent back to Congress for reworking. It doesn’t matter if it passes both Houses and gets signed by the President. If the Judiciary rules that it violates the Constitution, it gets thrown out. That’s how this works.

    • Dragomus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah well the thing is:
      If no one enforces the judiciary’s edicts, but they all say aye to whatever trump’s new decree of the day is then Judicial is just standing there foot in mouth …

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      14 hours ago

      You might think so but there are many recent examples of things playing out counter to a plain reading of law so I’m not quite as confident.

    • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Thats the whole point.

      Its sent to the courts and SCOTUS will overrule prior decisions like segregation and Jim Crow law.

    • throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Technically, the consitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn laws, its just a precedent set by Marbury vs Madison, and congress and the president at the time just went along with it. I could totally see the military use this logic and go “Hmm… seems legit” and proceed to ignore court orders.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Someone with standing has to file a case in court, then get a ruling in their favor.

      Until then, this would stand.

    • Lexi Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Makes you think about the headline. “Could disarm US Supreme Court” is at that point hyperbolic and misleading.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Literally their constitutionally mandated job, though at least the two usual suspects say otherwise and would dissent.

    • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      16 hours ago

      There is a concept of severability, which has precedent. They would not call the whole bill unconstitutional, just the infringing part.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        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.

      • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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.

  • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s crazy that the Supreme Court need to have guns, but I wouldn’t expect anything else from the US