The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Senate Parliamentarian Rejects Dangerous Provision of "Big Beautiful Bill" that Undermines Judicial Protection for Constitutional Rights
The parliamentarian ruled it cannot be enacted as part of a reconciliation bill not subject to the filibuster.

In two previous posts, I critiqued a dangerous provision of the Senate version of Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," which - if enacted - would severely undermine judicial protection against unconstitutional federal government actions (see here and here). In the process, I highlighted critiques by Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, and a coalition of conservative and libertarian public interest groups, led by the Firearms Policy Coalition. The provision would require litigants seeking preliminary injunctions against illegal federal government actions to post potentially enormous bonds.
Fortunately, the Senate parliamentarian has now ruled that this provision cannot be enacted as part of a reconciliation bill exempt from Senate filibuster rules:
A U.S. Senate official has concluded that a Republican-drafted provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies violates budgetary rules.
The Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, advised over the weekend that the provision ran afoul of a Senate rule governing what can be included in budget reconciliation legislation that can be passed with a simple-majority vote and would instead need to be subject to a 60-vote threshold if it remained in the bill.
Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, intend to use complex budget rules to pass the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" with a simple majority vote.
The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee. Her decision could spell doom for the provision's inclusion in the ultimate legislation Congress passes because it would allow Democrats to challenge the vote on the floor and require Republicans to muster 60 votes to pass it. Congressional leaders hope to enact the overall bill in the coming days so Trump can sign it into law before July 4.
The GOP-controlled Senate could potentially override the parliamentarian on a majority vote. But, at least at this point, they do not seem to have any plans to do so. If they don't, that spells the end of this dangerous proposal - at least for now. There is virtually no chance it could secure the 60 votes needed to enact it as stand-alone ordinary legislation.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"massive tax and spending bill" is a strange way to refer to a bill that cuts taxes and cuts spending.
It is the only way the left can refer to anything Trump; the opposite of what it really is.
Heads up; not on topic but expect Ilya to have a piece up soon.
SC rules US is free to deport illegals via "third party removal".
That is they may be sent to a country willing to accept them if their own country won't.
6-3 decision. One guess as to the three.
What was the phrase? "The usual suspects"?
Dude no.
SCOTUS put a stay on an court order that said Trump can't deport people to counties where they will likely be tortured.
Any MAGAs want to chime in and support torture?
The Supreme Court did not in fact rule that. It granted a stay; it did not issue any ruling on the merits.
Its not dead. Its Rule 65 c of civil procedure: "The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security 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. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security."
Roberts is going to rein in out of control district courts, or Congress will do it for them.
Once more, you nitwit: Roberts has no authority to do anything. Being Chief Justice doesn't even make him the boss of the Supreme Court, let alone of lower court judges.
So you're saying that Roberts doesn't have the power to do anything?
Other than issue a temporary stay until the full court can rule, correct. The judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court (and lower courts), not in the Chief Justice.
The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, is clearly a woke leftist Marxist socialist progressive who hates America. SHAME!
My latest Reason game:
Slowly scroll and see if I can pick all the Somin articles by the headline only.
Only one problem, to quote Lord Vader
"all to easy".
Both sides happily agreed to stuff like this so they could block when not in power.
Working as intended.
Could trump name himself to be the senate parliamentarian? That's how he's fixing the kennedy center, and how he's suggested fixing the fed in order to get rates down. He's going to need some control in order to get things done. He's busy, but he could do the senate parliamentarian's job in just a few minutes by giving the thumbs up to all of the stuff that he wants. This would really streamline the process too.
Please tell me you're not an attorney.
The Senate Parliamentarian ordered Trump to cancel the cease fire and declare war on Iran.