1. United States
2. N.C.
3. Letter

I am writing as your constituent to strongly oppose Section 70302 of the One Big Ugly Bill. As currently written, this provision would severely undermin cases where courts have historically exercised their discretion to waive such bonds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). e the authority of the federal judiciary by conditioning the enforcement of contempt orders on the posting of a bond at the outset of litigation, even in ally in public interest litigation and cases involving the federal government. Section 70302 would create a dangerous precedent. Courts have long been empowered to enforce compliance with lawful orders, including injunctions, especi By making enforcement contingent on a bond that courts often (and rightfully) waive, this provision effectively strips courts of their ability to act aga inst open defiance. It would allow individuals and entities found in violation of the law to avoid consequences not because their claims had merit, but because of a procedur al technicality introduced after the fact. Even more troubling, this provision applies retroactively to ongoing cases, changing the rules midstream. Judges who issued orders without requiring bonds, entirely consistent with current law, would now find themselves unable to enforce their rulings. This is not just unfair; it is a deeply destabilizing approach to judicial process, and it risks shielding those who knowingly disobey lawful court orders. I urge you to oppose Section 70302 and to work toward ensuring that our courts retain the authority they need to uphold the rule of law. Judicial discret ion and the fair administration of justice must not be compromised by retroactive, arbitrary limitations. Thank you for your vote to stop section 70302 in the Big Ugly Bill.