Court provision in federal budget bill stinks

Even big, beautiful things can contain things that are really rotten.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed, by one vote, its version of a budget bill which fulfills the campaign promise to extend tax cuts that were set to expire at the end of the year.

Cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and federal food programs will help pay for some of these tax cuts, with the rest made up by even more deficit spending. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, a longtime deficit hawk, has raised concerns about plans to increase the debt burden of the American people.

While these issues and concerns are important, they are largely business as usual when it comes federal budgets, with public policy debates and disagreements over taxes versus public benefits and entitlement programs.

You have to dig a little deeper into the more than 1,000-page bill to see the rotten part. Section 70302 of the bill states, “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.”

In layman’s terms, federal courts would be unable to enforce a contempt citation. Contempt citations, which bring with them fines and potential for jail time, are the primary tool the courts have to make sure their orders are followed. The measure would not just be limited to current and future decisions, but also apply to enforcement of past decisions, opening the door for groups, businesses, governments, and others to ignore past court rulings.

Beyond impact on enforcement of federal court rulings in the private sector, the provision effectively ends the system of checks and balances on the branches of government. Federal judges would have no power to stop blatantly unconstitutional orders from an administration that has sought to rule by fiat rather than through legislation.

“There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law,” stated Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley School of Law dean and distinguished professor of law in an article published on May 19 in “Just Security,” a non-partisan, daily digital law and policy journal.

As Chemerinsky writes, “This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”

The United States has relied on the balance of powers between the three branches of government to ensure stability and the rule of law. The American system of checks and balances is a fundamental part of the framework of the United States. Afederal judge without the power to enforce their decisions is just someone sitting behind a fancy desk wearing a robe talking to themselves while the executive branch grabs more power than was intended by the Founding Fathers.

The budget bill goes to the U.S. Senate, where it needs a simple majority to be passed. Call on Senators Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin to remove this provision and stop the neutering of the federal courts.

The Tribune Record Gleaner editorial board consists of publisher Kris O’Leary and Star News editor Brian Wilson.