Dangerously Hidden in the Fine Print: How a New Bill Could Shield Trump from Contempt Charges

The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter #336

If you weren’t already aware of what I’m about the tell you…I think your jaw is going to hit the floor. Yes, even in this era where we all seem to be somewhat desensitized.

A provision buried deep in a newly passed House bill could dismantle the courts’ ability to enforce contempt rulings—effectively giving Trump and others a license to ignore the law.

The Provision No One Was Supposed to Notice

A little-noticed clause in a recently passed House bill is raising red flags among constitutional experts…civil liberties groups…and former judges.

It’s not front-page news—yet—but it should be!

Tucked into the bill is a provision that bars federal courts from using appropriated funds to enforce contempt citations in cases involving injunctions or temporary restraining orders—unless the plaintiff has posted a security bond.

In legal terms, that sounds technical. In real-world terms…it means this:

If a judge issues an order—say, to stop illegal activity—and the violator ignores it, the court can’t enforce punishment unless the plaintiff pays up first.

That may sound bureaucratic…but in practice, it could cripple the power of federal courts—and create a dangerous loophole for powerful figures…including Donald Trump.

Why This Matters: Contempt Power Is a Core Function of the Courts

Contempt of court isn’t just symbolic—it’s one of the most important tools judges have to enforce the law. Without it…court orders are just suggestions.

Legal scholars warn that this provision could:

• Block enforcement of federal injunctions

• Nullify ongoing lawsuits against government actions

• Empower officials (like Trump) to defy judges without consequence

“This would effectively gut existing court orders, even those that are decades old,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law.

One example? Injunctions related to immigration enforcement, voting rights…or civil liberties could be rendered meaningless overnight if enforcement depends on the plaintiff’s ability to afford a bond.

So Why Was This Put in the Bill?

The timing and language of the provision strongly suggest it’s not accidental.

According to Margaret Russell…a constitutional law professor at Santa Clara University:

“This is a stealth attack on the judicial branch. It’s designed to limit accountability—especially for former executive officials who could otherwise face legal consequences for ignoring federal court orders.”

It’s worth noting that the measure appears tailor-made for someone like Donald Trump, who has faced multiple court orders—including gag orders, injunctions…and civil findings of fraud and defamation.

Removing or limiting the court’s contempt power clears a critical path for ongoing defiance of the rule of law.

What It Could Mean in Practice

Let’s say a federal judge tells a former president to comply with an investigation…hand over documents…or stop publicly threatening court officers. That judge could issue an injunction or restraining order.

But under this provision? If the plaintiff hasn’t posted a court-approved bond (often tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars), the court is barred from spending money to enforce its own order.

In other words, a well-funded, well-lawyered defendant—especially a politically protected one—could ignore the court with impunity.

This creates a two-tiered justice system:

• One for the powerful, who can dodge enforcement

• Another for everyone else, who remains fully accountable to judicial authority

Experts Warn of a Constitutional Crisis

This isn’t just a bad bill. It’s a potential constitutional crisis.

Federal courts derive their authority from the Constitution and are designed to serve as a check on the executive and legislative branches.

But if Congress can strip the courts of enforcement power—especially in politically charged cases—then the balance of power collapses.

“It would turn the judiciary into a paper tiger,” said one former federal judge, speaking anonymously to avoid political retaliation.

And while the bill hasn’t yet passed the Senate…it sets a dangerous precedent:

Congress using technical language to kneecap the courts, shielding political allies and undermining judicial independence.

Why This Must Be Stopped—Now

This provision cannot be allowed to stand for several reasons:

1. It violates the separation of powers
   The courts must remain independent and able to enforce their rulings…or democracy becomes theater.

2. It creates an escape hatch for Trump and others
   Those facing serious civil or criminal scrutiny could simply defy the courts with no fear of contempt.

3. It encourages executive overreach
   With weakened judicial oversight, presidents—or former presidents—can behave more like autocrats than public servants.

4. It punishes citizens and advocacy groups
   Requiring security bonds creates a wealth barrier to justice…effectively silencing low-income plaintiffs or nonprofits.

What You Can Do

If you believe in the rule of law…now is the time to act:

• Contact your Senator…TOMORROW…and demand that this provision be stripped from any final version of the bill.

• Support watchdog groups like CREW, ACLU, and Protect Democracy that are fighting to preserve judicial integrity.

• Share this information—many Americans don’t know what’s buried in this bill.

Final Thought: No One Is Above the Law

America’s legal system rests on one essential idea: that no one…not even a president, is above the law.

If courts can’t hold people in contempt…that principle dies.

Once it’s gone…we’ll never see the return of the ability to hold people in contempt. These things never get restored.

If this bill becomes law…it won’t just protect one man from legal consequences—it will damage the foundation of American justice for years to come.

Let’s not let that happen quietly.

Want to stay updated on legal accountability…justice reform…and the health of American democracy…and mental and physical health for resilience…period?

Subscribe and share this post to keep the conversation alive.

I’ll be back again soon…with even more.

Warmly,

Jack