The provision referred to as Section 70303 is located in the concluding paragraph of the 116-page legislative document that was sanctioned by the committee last week during the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution process, as reported by Roll Call.

This language prohibits courts from utilizing federal funds to enforce contempt citations against government officials who do not adhere to court orders, unless plaintiffs provide a monetary bond in line with civil procedure regulations—a stipulation that legal experts indicate is infrequently enforced in cases contesting federal policy.

A staff member from the House Judiciary Committee stated that the provision is primarily intended to prevent baseless lawsuits. Democrats contend that this measure would greatly weaken judicial power, particularly given the Trump administration’s evident antagonism towards judges who rule against its policy efforts.

Furthermore, two federal judges—Judge James E. Boasberg from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Judge Paula Xinis from the U.S. District Court of Maryland—have suggested they might consider holding Trump administration officials in contempt in cases related to immigration.

Republicans argue that the two judges in question, along with several others appointed by Democratic presidents, have frequently exceeded their jurisdiction through decisions that unjustly and unconstitutionally restrict President Trump’s ability to manage the Executive Branch. Consequently, both some of these judges and the president have advocated for impeachment proceedings against at least one judge, Boasberg.

A Republican lawmaker in the House has filed articles of impeachment against him following his obstruction of the Trump administration’s deportation flights carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, as reported by Fox News in March.

In recent weeks, we have observed multiple activist judges acting outside their jurisdiction in an attempt to obstruct the president from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the electorate, as well as his democratic and constitutional responsibility to ensure the safety of the American populace,” stated Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, in an interview with Fox News Digital. “This incident exemplifies yet another case of a judge exceeding his authority.

Gill’s resolution charges Boasberg with overstepping his authority by enforcing an emergency suspension of the Trump administration’s initiatives to deport undocumented immigrants under a wartime statute enacted in 1798. Trump has recently utilized this law to expel individuals associated with the Venezuelan criminal organization Tren de Aragua from the United States.

Chief Judge Boasberg mandated that President Trump redirect aircraft in flight that were linked to Tren De Aragua, a recognized Foreign Terrorist Organization, according to the resolution. This action endangers national security, constitutes a misuse of judicial authority, and undermines the proper operation of the judiciary. By exercising his official powers, Chief Judge Boasberg has sought to usurp authority from the Executive Branch and disrupt the intentions of the American populace.

In a concise interview with Fox News Digital prior to submitting his resolution, Gill expressed his preference for the issue to advance through the House via the conventional procedure, beginning with an examination by the House Judiciary Committee, of which he is a member.

Gill stated, “I will discuss this matter with Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. I believe the most effective approach is to proceed through the judiciary committee, as it is the appropriate channel for the impeachment of judges. Adhering to this strategy will yield better results.”

Concerning the nationwide injunctions filed against the Trump administration, Roll Call noted that Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stipulates that judges may grant a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the moving party provides security in a sum deemed appropriate by the court to cover the costs and damages incurred by any party determined to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.

However, Republican critics argue that judges have not adhered to the rule, and this legislation aims to address that issue.