Trump’s “beautiful” law is massively restricting dishes

Law limits courts

“In one fell swoop, Trump can crown himself to the king”

The government can protect a small paragraph in the tax law that US President Trump submitted from court decisions. Critics see a breach of the constitution.

In Donald Trump’s “large, beautiful” tax law, which was adopted by the American House of Representatives on Thursday, there is a passage that makes the constitutional rights take notice.

The 1,000 -page law also deals with a limitation of the courts. “No court of the United States may use approved funds to enforce a summons for disregard for an interim decision or an interim prohibition if no security has been made when the disposal or the ban was issued,” says the legal text. In short: only if plaintiffs deposit a security deposit can you complain against an order from the government and apply for an injunction.

Such security benefits are common in many smaller procedures, but rarely in large cases, such as complaints against the government or antitrust law procedure. The provision “would make most of the existing injunctive relief, as in anti-antitrust laws, police reform, school renovations and others,” wrote Erwin Cheminersky, Dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, in the US specialist magazine “Just Security”. “It only serves to weaken the power of the federal courts.”

The provision would forbid the courts to enforce preloads when disregarding interim declarations of injunctive relief or temporary orders if a security deposit had not been deposited beforehand. However, it is precisely such cases that are currently being presented against the US government.

As an example, the lawyer stated the recent judicial dispute over the deportation of migrants to El Salvador. Federal judge James Boasberg had issued an injunction, which temporarily prohibited these deportations. Other judges, supported by the Supreme Court, also formulated such orders. “It would be nonsensical to demand the payment of deposits from the plaintiffs in these procedures in order to gain access to the federal courts,” wrote Cheminersky.

He stated that federal courts rarely request a deposit from those who want to prevent unconstitutional actions by the federal, state or local authorities. The background is that the plaintiffs who apply for such orders do not have the funds to deposit a deposit.

The passage in the law now makes it impossible to force the government to act. Thousands of orders could not be implemented. Even if the government is guilty that it violated the constitution, a judicial decision would not be enforced without security. The law should also apply retrospectively.

However, the lawyer sees a back door: If the judges set the security deposit on a dollar in the future, private individuals could also be able to sue judicial orders. Cheminersky nevertheless sees the legal passage “attempt by the Trump government to pry one of the few controls of their powers.”

He is not alone with that. Robert Reich, former Minister of Labor and Professor of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley, wrote in a contribution to Substack that the “hidden” provision was dangerous. “With this, Trump could crown herself to the king”. No congress and no court could stop him, the Democrat criticized and called on voters to protest against the project.

Trump had come close to absolute monarchs several times. In February he posted a picture of the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and a quote attributed to him: “The one who saves his country is always above law”. A few days later, Trump then published an illustration that shows him with a crown, plus the sentence: “Long live the king”.

The democratic MP Joe Neguse also criticized the restriction of the courts. “You (Trump’s followers) know that the Trump government loses every case in federal courts. This is open to the constitution. But they do it anyway,” he said in a video that was spread on X.

The law still has to be passed by the Senate and then signed by Trump. The chairman of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, said the goal was to send the law to the president by the beginning of July.