1. United States
2. Ariz.
3. Letter

Please work with any Republican who will listen, and make sure this portion of the "budget bill" being used to pass along Project 2025 agenda items is struck: Sec. 70302 – Blocks courts from enforcing contempt charges against government officials, unless a judge required a monetary bond when issuing the original injunction. “No funds appropriated… may be used to enforce a citation for civil or criminal contempt… unless the court required the posting of security in the form of a bond.” What this means: Injunctions are emergency court orders - Judges issue them to temporarily stop actions, like deportations, bans, or drilling, while a case is being decided. Judges often waive bonds in public interest cases - A bond is a financial deposit meant to protect the losing side if the injunction is later overturned. - Judges typically don’t require them when: - The plaintiff can’t afford it. - The case involves fundamental rights, not financial damages. - The government is the defendant, and financial risk is minimal. This section creates a dangerous loophole - If no bond was required, which is common, this bill blocks any federal money from being used to enforce contempt. - Translation: Officials can violate court orders and face no consequences. - Even if a judge tries to hold them in contempt, they’ll be blocked from enforcing it. Bottom line: This isn’t budget policy, it’s a power grab. It strips judges of their ability to enforce the law and gives government officials a green light to ignore court orders. It’s authoritarian by design and it’s buried in the fine print.