Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers

[In It to Win It]

The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans’ megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration.

The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts’ ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate’s rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian’s decision as a major victory.

“Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump’s contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,” Schumer said in a statement responding to the development.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-parliamentarian-rejects-gop-attempt-201608819.html

[Cha]

1. This sounds Good.. but I don't

understand.. is The Senate parliamentarian a gop?

It would break the Rule and Not be Constitution but magas don't care.

TY!

[appmanga]

2. The Parliamentarian is presumed to be non-partisan...

...and ignoring her would essentially break the Senate as a good faith institution because they will have killed the umpire.

[Cha]

3. Oh Thank You! Traitor & all his

little traitors must be APOCALYPTIC at Elizabeth MacDonough.. Our Heroine!

[Scrivener7]

4. Thank god.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers

This provision was clearly not permitted under the Byrd rule. trump and Johnson will NOT be able to use reconciliation to limit the power of the courts to enjoin trump's illegal actions.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5363225-senate-parliamentarian-rules-out-contempt-provision/

Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP’s attempt to limit courts’ contempt powers www.yahoo.com/news/senate-...

— ☘️🦌🤙TreeHuggin (@roberthernon.bsky.social) 2025-06-23T00:19:57.258Z

The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans’ megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration.

The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts’ ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate’s rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian’s decision as a major victory.

“Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump’s contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,” Schumer said in a statement responding to the development.

“But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,” he said.

The provision, tucked into the thousand-page bill House Republicans passed in May, would have required anyone suing the federal government to pay a bond before a court would be allowed to use its contempt power to enforce injunctions and other rulings.

[cliffside]

6. Also - Senate Official Rejects Food Aid Cuts Proposed by Republicans in Megabill

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/21/us/politics/senate-snap-food-stamps.html?unlocked_article_code=1.RE8.5Ptg.wbhhaZl69wTa&smid=url-share


"A top Senate official on Friday night rejected a bid by Republicans to slash federal food aid payments as part of their sweeping legislation carrying President Trump’s domestic agenda, sending party leaders scrambling to find another way to help offset the massive cost of the bill...

... Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, ruled that the SNAP measure, which would push some of the costs of nutrition assistance onto the states, did not. That sent Republicans back to the drawing board to find another strategy for covering tens of billions of dollars of the bill’s cost...

... The ruling was just one piece of a broader review the parliamentarian is conducting of the Republican-written legislation. She was expected to work through the weekend evaluating the measure and instructing Republicans to strip out any provision she deems out of order. Should they fail to do so, Democrats could challenge the bill on the floor, forcing Republicans to muster 60 votes to advance it, which would effectively kill it since Democrats are solidly opposed..."