At the end of page 562 of the 1,118-page bill, a brief section entitled “Restriction on Enforcement” says:
No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.”
Rule 65(c) says judges may only issue preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders if litigants provide a security bond “in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Judges have wide discretion on that amount, and, as The Intercept’s Shawn Musgrave notes, the rule requiring such a financial guarantee is “generally relaxed when the lawsuit alleges illegal conduct by the government.”
But no more, if House Republicans get their way. Under this provision, anyone seeking an injunction or restraining order would have to put up a financial bond, in an amount determined by the judge in the case, if the litigants wanted to keep alive that judge’s contempt power. As Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, writes,“Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review.”
这啥意思？
意思就是，一旦通过后
法院不能因为川普政府 无视法庭判决的行为 而 判决他藐视法庭并实施。因为不给你执行藐视法庭的资金？
这是要帝制吗？