UPDATE: Based on the final text and legal commentary... the contempt-limiting clause as originally drafted in Section 70302 does not seem to survive in the final law.
That suggests the pressure succeeded; the drafters appear to have dropped or watered down the provision in the version that passed.
They pulled the clause...but not the playbook. Public pressure worked this time. The real lesson? They’ll try again...quieter...hidden deeper. Stay alert...read the fine print...and never assume victory means the game is over.
Case in point: the final bill omission even escaped me, and I do this stuff all day long, 7 days a week.
In short, they have so much coming at us, so fast, and so often...that it's relatively easy to miss some important things. Missing a "bad" one that got omitted is a "whew!" But when we miss a one that didn't get omitted, it becomes "really bad."
I appreciate the heads up on this buried clause but look. What would stop a judge that wishes to preserve his/her power to hold an offender in contempt of a court order, and to impose punitive sanctions up to and including imprisonment, from demanding a bond of say, $1.00, from the petitioner seeking injunctive relief? Really, what judge WOULDN'T do that?
Great question...John...and you’re thinking like a savvy judge.
Short answer: the “$1 bond” workaround helps in some new cases, but it doesn’t solve the core damage this clause creates.
Here’s why:
It doesn’t fix existing orders. The bill’s language applies to injunctions/TROs issued before enactment if no security was given at the time. A judge can’t magically backfill a bond onto an old order.
They’d have to re-open/modify it...which triggers notice...briefing...and delay...prime time for noncompliance.
Time is the point. Even if a judge reissues an order with a nominal bond...the gap creates a window to ignore the court. For fast-moving abuses (speech restrictions, surveillance, detentions...election rules...environmental harms)...days or weeks matter.
Not every order is easily reissued. To modify or replace an injunction...judges often must revisit standards (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities). That’s more litigation...and more leverage for the party defying the order.
Nominal bonds invite appeals. Many courts allow token bonds; others expect security to reflect risk to the enjoined party. A $1 bond could be attacked as not “real security,” generating appellate friction and further delay.
It chills public-interest cases. Judges frequently waive bonds in civil-rights and constitutional cases because plaintiffs (journalists, voters, nonprofits) can’t afford them.
This clause forces judges to choose: impose a bond (and price people out) or issue an order that can’t be enforced.
It muddies contempt authority. The statute’s message is: if no security was posted when issued...contempt can’t bite. That uncertainty alone makes some judges more cautious... exactly the chilling effect drafters want.
Permanent vs. preliminary. Much emergency relief is via TROs and preliminary injunctions (Rule 65(c) territory). That’s when enforcement teeth matter most. Saying “just add $1” underestimates how often courts waive security precisely to make urgent rights-protection possible.
Bottom line: good judges will try the $1 bond move going forward. Some will do it as standard practice. But this clause still (1) neuters existing orders, (2) manufactures delay/appeal fodder, and (3) shifts costs and risk onto rights-holders. That’s a feature, not a bug.
Appreciate you pressure-testing this...it’s exactly the kind of question we need in public view.
Jack, I usually never question your amazing reporting, ground game no-nonsense style, emergency what-to-do-if-or-when, BUT.....
This one I got one up on ya, I think, and I'm pretty sure.
Usually, I let the thinking go to others, better equipped.
I knew long before they passed the OBBB that they included "Section 70302" which would not allow enforcement of contempt orders of TROs or injunctions, if they were not complied with, unless a bond in the amount of "damages", like that's even possible, was posted before the contempt order was handed down PRE-TRO or INJUNCTION.
It was essentially a restriction on enforcement that Vought tried to sneak in the bill and would have been a disaster, but of course, the MAGA faction-ists, saw it as completely fine as the POTUS should have NO RESTRAINTS to do as he pleases. WRONG.
I wish the 70302 could be used in reverse on the Robert's 6!!
Due to the Byrd Rule, Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, removed Section 70302, as it violated the above rule.
The Byrd Rule restricts what can be included in BR bills to only those provisions that have a direct and significant impact on federal spending or revenue.
I did my homework long ago.
It was very worrisome to me and then the SCOTUS removes the lower court's ability to issue national injunctions anyway.
Having said all that what he's doing, today, to pay the military is ILLEGAL. by moving DOD funds appropriated, by Congress, and are our taxpayers dollars, he can't just take from the DOD's R&D funds and reroute them under the "ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT", which prohibits government officials from using taxpayer dollars for purposes other than were authorized by Congress.
This was an ACT from 150 years ago when Congress still gave a shit.
Trump's statement or confession was this "I am using my authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to direct our Secretary of War (DEFENSE..my insert), Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our troops PAID on October 15th. "We" (quotes are mine) have identified funds to do this."
WE--WHO???
$8B is needed and will be stolen from taxpayers and what's more Congress EXPLICITLY REJECTED VOTES TO FUND THE MILITARY. So, CONGRESS opposed using taxpayer funds to fund the military, ON THE RECORD.
Perhaps it's time to admit tariffs don't work, raise taxes on the upper 1-5%, and also increase FICA proportionately to income.
They are placing more strain on that due to all the early retirements of the civil service and all up coming early retirements due to the shit economy most are unaware will hit or aren't prepared.
Ain't HE GRAND?
The fine print that makes MSM so fkn worthless, not to mention, SCOTUS allowed a pocket rescission of $4B which is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL just a couple of weeks ago.
That money was from last fiscal year 9/30/24 PRE-ELECTION.
I hope I didn't get under your skin for this but gotta keep it real as we all have waaaay toooo much toooo process these days!!!
Not under my skin at all! You nailed the mechanics exactly right...and I’m glad you laid it out so clearly. I just posted an update...and this one slipped past me. This was one I had researched...and then let sit on the back burner...and I didn't do an updated search before publishing. I have been in the last 30 minutes or so...and you are correct.
The Byrd Rule and MacDonough’s ruling were the crucial kill switches. Without them, 70302 might have quietly become law...and we’d be dealing with a far darker legal landscape right now.
You’re absolutely right to credit those procedural brakes...most Americans don’t realize how fragile they are or how close we came.
Where my focus has always been isn’t just the clause itself...but the pattern. This was a test case for how far the architects of unchecked power could push before anyone noticed.
They lost this round...but they learned. And as you just pointed out, they’re already shifting power through budget maneuvers and executive workarounds that don’t rely on Congress at all.
The danger isn’t only in the bills; it’s in the normalization of defiance.
Your comment captures exactly why I write the way I do...because readers like you are connecting dots at a depth that most media skips.
The whole point of this work is to turn that kind of insight into vigilance that spreads. So no...keep it real, always!
That’s how we stay ahead of the next buried clause or quiet executive “adjustment” that chips away at the rule of law.
I believe it was Dissent in Bloom, an intrepid young journalist here on SubStack, who reported on this when there was an explosion of hubbub around the BBB, either just before or right after it passed. I heard about this little piece of nastiness awhile back, though, yeah.
As of October 2025, Section 70302 is a provision that was removed from a budget reconciliation bill in the Senate following a procedural ruling. The provision, passed earlier by the House of Representatives, aimed to weaken the federal judiciary's ability to enforce contempt citations for failure to comply with certain court orders.
Correct, you are...Andrew. I just posted this update. Thank you for paying close attention.
UPDATE: Based on the final text and legal commentary... the contempt-limiting clause as originally drafted in Section 70302 does not seem to survive in the final law.
That suggests the pressure succeeded; the drafters appear to have dropped or watered down the provision in the version that passed.
They pulled the clause...but not the playbook. Public pressure worked this time. The real lesson? They’ll try again...quieter...hidden deeper. Stay alert...read the fine print...and never assume victory means the game is over.
Case in point: the final bill omission even escaped me, and I do this stuff all day long, 7 days a week.
In short, they have so much coming at us, so fast, and so often...that it's relatively easy to miss some important things. Missing a "bad" one that got omitted is a "whew!" But when we miss a one that didn't get omitted, it becomes "really bad."
I’m under the impression that with the current DOJ and all that report to it, being who they are and likely unwilling to enforce a court order, that we are currently operating this way, at least at the federal level. So, is this 70302 a type of vaccination immunizing these n’er do wells for arrests during future round ups such as might occur during ‘Nuremberg 21st Century’? Or, is it intended moreso to nail John Q Public now?
UPDATE: Based on the final text and legal commentary... the contempt-limiting clause as originally drafted in Section 70302 does not seem to survive in the final law.
That suggests the pressure succeeded; the drafters appear to have dropped or watered down the provision in the version that passed.
They pulled the clause...but not the playbook. Public pressure worked this time. The real lesson? They’ll try again...quieter...hidden deeper. Stay alert...read the fine print...and never assume victory means the game is over.
Case in point: the final bill omission even escaped me, and I do this stuff all day long, 7 days a week.
In short, they have so much coming at us, so fast, and so often...that it's relatively easy to miss some important things. Missing a "bad" one that got omitted is a "whew!" But when we miss a one that didn't get omitted, it becomes "really bad."
It's all good, Jack, your doing a great job here, Thank you, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
I appreciate the heads up on this buried clause but look. What would stop a judge that wishes to preserve his/her power to hold an offender in contempt of a court order, and to impose punitive sanctions up to and including imprisonment, from demanding a bond of say, $1.00, from the petitioner seeking injunctive relief? Really, what judge WOULDN'T do that?
Great question...John...and you’re thinking like a savvy judge.
Short answer: the “$1 bond” workaround helps in some new cases, but it doesn’t solve the core damage this clause creates.
Here’s why:
It doesn’t fix existing orders. The bill’s language applies to injunctions/TROs issued before enactment if no security was given at the time. A judge can’t magically backfill a bond onto an old order.
They’d have to re-open/modify it...which triggers notice...briefing...and delay...prime time for noncompliance.
Time is the point. Even if a judge reissues an order with a nominal bond...the gap creates a window to ignore the court. For fast-moving abuses (speech restrictions, surveillance, detentions...election rules...environmental harms)...days or weeks matter.
Not every order is easily reissued. To modify or replace an injunction...judges often must revisit standards (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities). That’s more litigation...and more leverage for the party defying the order.
Nominal bonds invite appeals. Many courts allow token bonds; others expect security to reflect risk to the enjoined party. A $1 bond could be attacked as not “real security,” generating appellate friction and further delay.
It chills public-interest cases. Judges frequently waive bonds in civil-rights and constitutional cases because plaintiffs (journalists, voters, nonprofits) can’t afford them.
This clause forces judges to choose: impose a bond (and price people out) or issue an order that can’t be enforced.
It muddies contempt authority. The statute’s message is: if no security was posted when issued...contempt can’t bite. That uncertainty alone makes some judges more cautious... exactly the chilling effect drafters want.
Permanent vs. preliminary. Much emergency relief is via TROs and preliminary injunctions (Rule 65(c) territory). That’s when enforcement teeth matter most. Saying “just add $1” underestimates how often courts waive security precisely to make urgent rights-protection possible.
Bottom line: good judges will try the $1 bond move going forward. Some will do it as standard practice. But this clause still (1) neuters existing orders, (2) manufactures delay/appeal fodder, and (3) shifts costs and risk onto rights-holders. That’s a feature, not a bug.
Appreciate you pressure-testing this...it’s exactly the kind of question we need in public view.
-Jack
I’m sick. It’s going to come down to guns, isn’t it?
Jack, I usually never question your amazing reporting, ground game no-nonsense style, emergency what-to-do-if-or-when, BUT.....
This one I got one up on ya, I think, and I'm pretty sure.
Usually, I let the thinking go to others, better equipped.
I knew long before they passed the OBBB that they included "Section 70302" which would not allow enforcement of contempt orders of TROs or injunctions, if they were not complied with, unless a bond in the amount of "damages", like that's even possible, was posted before the contempt order was handed down PRE-TRO or INJUNCTION.
It was essentially a restriction on enforcement that Vought tried to sneak in the bill and would have been a disaster, but of course, the MAGA faction-ists, saw it as completely fine as the POTUS should have NO RESTRAINTS to do as he pleases. WRONG.
I wish the 70302 could be used in reverse on the Robert's 6!!
Due to the Byrd Rule, Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, removed Section 70302, as it violated the above rule.
The Byrd Rule restricts what can be included in BR bills to only those provisions that have a direct and significant impact on federal spending or revenue.
I did my homework long ago.
It was very worrisome to me and then the SCOTUS removes the lower court's ability to issue national injunctions anyway.
Having said all that what he's doing, today, to pay the military is ILLEGAL. by moving DOD funds appropriated, by Congress, and are our taxpayers dollars, he can't just take from the DOD's R&D funds and reroute them under the "ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT", which prohibits government officials from using taxpayer dollars for purposes other than were authorized by Congress.
This was an ACT from 150 years ago when Congress still gave a shit.
Trump's statement or confession was this "I am using my authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to direct our Secretary of War (DEFENSE..my insert), Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our troops PAID on October 15th. "We" (quotes are mine) have identified funds to do this."
WE--WHO???
$8B is needed and will be stolen from taxpayers and what's more Congress EXPLICITLY REJECTED VOTES TO FUND THE MILITARY. So, CONGRESS opposed using taxpayer funds to fund the military, ON THE RECORD.
Perhaps it's time to admit tariffs don't work, raise taxes on the upper 1-5%, and also increase FICA proportionately to income.
They are placing more strain on that due to all the early retirements of the civil service and all up coming early retirements due to the shit economy most are unaware will hit or aren't prepared.
Ain't HE GRAND?
The fine print that makes MSM so fkn worthless, not to mention, SCOTUS allowed a pocket rescission of $4B which is illegal and UNCONSTITUTIONAL just a couple of weeks ago.
That money was from last fiscal year 9/30/24 PRE-ELECTION.
I hope I didn't get under your skin for this but gotta keep it real as we all have waaaay toooo much toooo process these days!!!
NO KINGS!!
Not under my skin at all! You nailed the mechanics exactly right...and I’m glad you laid it out so clearly. I just posted an update...and this one slipped past me. This was one I had researched...and then let sit on the back burner...and I didn't do an updated search before publishing. I have been in the last 30 minutes or so...and you are correct.
The Byrd Rule and MacDonough’s ruling were the crucial kill switches. Without them, 70302 might have quietly become law...and we’d be dealing with a far darker legal landscape right now.
You’re absolutely right to credit those procedural brakes...most Americans don’t realize how fragile they are or how close we came.
Where my focus has always been isn’t just the clause itself...but the pattern. This was a test case for how far the architects of unchecked power could push before anyone noticed.
They lost this round...but they learned. And as you just pointed out, they’re already shifting power through budget maneuvers and executive workarounds that don’t rely on Congress at all.
The danger isn’t only in the bills; it’s in the normalization of defiance.
Your comment captures exactly why I write the way I do...because readers like you are connecting dots at a depth that most media skips.
The whole point of this work is to turn that kind of insight into vigilance that spreads. So no...keep it real, always!
That’s how we stay ahead of the next buried clause or quiet executive “adjustment” that chips away at the rule of law.
-Jack
Made a note of the numbered section for my call to R Rep. Hurd's office. He claims to be a "constitutional conservative." We shall see.
I believe it was Dissent in Bloom, an intrepid young journalist here on SubStack, who reported on this when there was an explosion of hubbub around the BBB, either just before or right after it passed. I heard about this little piece of nastiness awhile back, though, yeah.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dissentinbloom/p/the-constitution-wont-cover-poor?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1r9beh
As of October 2025, Section 70302 is a provision that was removed from a budget reconciliation bill in the Senate following a procedural ruling. The provision, passed earlier by the House of Representatives, aimed to weaken the federal judiciary's ability to enforce contempt citations for failure to comply with certain court orders.
Correct, you are...Andrew. I just posted this update. Thank you for paying close attention.
UPDATE: Based on the final text and legal commentary... the contempt-limiting clause as originally drafted in Section 70302 does not seem to survive in the final law.
That suggests the pressure succeeded; the drafters appear to have dropped or watered down the provision in the version that passed.
They pulled the clause...but not the playbook. Public pressure worked this time. The real lesson? They’ll try again...quieter...hidden deeper. Stay alert...read the fine print...and never assume victory means the game is over.
Case in point: the final bill omission even escaped me, and I do this stuff all day long, 7 days a week.
In short, they have so much coming at us, so fast, and so often...that it's relatively easy to miss some important things. Missing a "bad" one that got omitted is a "whew!" But when we miss a one that didn't get omitted, it becomes "really bad."
-Jack
Agree, while this one might not have made it, it is symptomatic of a larger and more pervasive issue. All the more reason for diligence on our part.
I’m under the impression that with the current DOJ and all that report to it, being who they are and likely unwilling to enforce a court order, that we are currently operating this way, at least at the federal level. So, is this 70302 a type of vaccination immunizing these n’er do wells for arrests during future round ups such as might occur during ‘Nuremberg 21st Century’? Or, is it intended moreso to nail John Q Public now?
Spot on. I wish I hadn’t just eaten before I saw that photo.