Republican leaders in the Senate are considering adding a provision to President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” that would limit federal judges’ authority to block government policies.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) released his legislative text Thursday. It includes a section on preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders, but does not include House-passed text aimed at limiting the ability of federal courts to enforce contempt orders.

Recommended Stories

• Democrats cash in on Alex Padilla’s clash with federal agents
• Senate seersucker tradition fosters bipartisanship in polarizing times
• Lindsey Graham outflanks Rand Paul on border funding in Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’

Some of Grassley’s fellow Republicans in the Senate, which has a narrow three-seat GOP majority, have said they would oppose the bill over this provision or look to remove it through a parliamentary maneuver.

Grassley’s text goes a step further than the House version. It seeks to stop nationwide injunctions from being imposed by requiring judges to collect bonds from litigants challenging the government, which typically does not happen in these kinds of legal proceedings. Under the bill, judges without a bond would be prevented from enforcing their orders through contempt proceedings.

The House version is more focused on contempt enforcement when nationwide injunctions are not obeyed after they are handed down. 

Critics have warned that this provision, should it pass, would hinder the enforcement of court orders.

In reference to the House version of the remarks, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said on the Senate floor that “currently, Trump administration officials know that if they violate court orders, they can be held in contempt and subject to fines — or even jail time.”

“This would let President Trump pursue his agenda without any concern about being held accountable in the courts. And it would prevent courts from enforcing contempt citations in all manner of cases — whether the injunction issued today, tomorrow, or even ten years ago,” Durbin continued.

In a statement on the Senate version, Josh Sorbe, a spokesman for Durbin, said, “Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they’re beholden to a President who is breaking the law — but the courts are not.”

“Their newfound frustration is ironic, given they cheered and even asked for nationwide injunctions themselves during the Biden administration. Sen. Durbin, on the other hand, will be taking a measured, objective approach and work to remove these unnecessary provisions from the big, ugly bill,” Sorbe said.

The Justice Department under the last five presidential administrations, both Republican and Democratic-led, has pushed back on the idea of nationwide injunctions. 

HURRICANE SEASON STARTS JUNE 1. HERE’S WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT CUTS TO WEATHER AGENCIES

Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding judges issuing nationwide injunctions, and justices across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism over how to rein in their use.

Grassley did not respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Ramsey Touchberry contributed to this report.