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.
Let's see, in no particular order:
1. This is a process question- in other words, this is about the budget reconciliation process. Reconciliation (which can pass with 51 votes) has a requirement that the matters within it be related to revenue, spending, or the debt. Anything extraneous to that cannot be included. Revenue is ... tax. Spending is ... spending.
2. The (sigh) "Big Beautiful Bill" Act is a BIG BILL ... a massive one, in fact. And by definition, it is a massive tax and spending bill if it is going through the reconciliation process. It didn't say it is a bill that will enact massive taxes, just that it is a massive (or if you prefer, big) tax and spending bill. Which it has to be.
3. Look, I don't want to get into the weeds here, but anyone that hasn't fully drunk the kool-aid knows what the effects of the bill will be. It's so bad that "dynamic scoring" (the thing that the GOP used to demand) actually makes the bill worse.
I don't care one way or the other about the individual policy debates regarding the provisions. But at some point, people might want to actually understand basic things like, "How much of government spending is going to service debt?" Or, "What will happen to spending if debt continues to increase (and/or rates go up and/or treasuries are no longer as attractive)?"
This is part of the basic principle that facts are what they are, and you can choose to find out what they are ... or not. I mean, if you are as old as Trump is, you probably don't care. Since the pain can always be passed down. Until it can't.
I will remind everyone that at the end of the Clinton era, we had a surplus and began to make positive work on the debt issue. But then ... well, we rolled that into tax cuts and defence spending. Because that's what we do.
Remember when Perot ran on the debt? Because it was such a massive issue? It was approximately 4 trillion at that time. Now? Over $36 trillion. This year, payments on debt passed our defence spending. In other words, when the debt was such a big deal, it totalled 4 trillion- but now, we spend 1 trillion every single year just to service the debt we have.
This Bill will significantly increase our debt- which means more spending because, for no other reason, you have to pay interest on it.
Whatever. Carry on. Or you can do the Brett approach that since the problem seems insolvable, just keep cutting taxes. You know, the same approach we've been using that never works.
It's interesting, at this rate, all the discretionary spending will dry up, leaving only defense and third rail stuff. What will the corruptions tap off? Ha ha!
Ooooooh, regulatory burden and kickbacks.
Ooohhhh, military industrial complex.
Nevermind.
The thing is- that's not a serious thought. That "discretionary" spending? Well ... it might not be in the ballpark of the big three-
Main Entitlements 45% (24% health, 21% social security)
Defense (13%)
Interest (13% ... well, 14% now, but close enough)
Now, add in the vested entitlements (the benefits earned by veterans and other federal employees), and you have 8%.
That's 79% of the budget. By they way, that doesn't include the 7% that is assistance to Americans (everything from SSDI to EITC or Child Tax Credit refunds to SNAP). If you include that, you're up to 86%
Everything else ... EVERYTHING ELSE ... from running the Courts to homeland security to infrastructure to the park rangers in Zion National Park to law enforcement (and I know that some of you love certain parts of federal law enforcement right now) to operating port and airport security and checks to operating embassies to ALL OF IT ... that's 14% of spending. And if you did that for FY 2024 ... you'd almost be halfway to a balanced budget. You still need to chop off another 13+%.
That's right- you if you got rid of all of that and all defence spending, you'd balance the budget, but you still would need to further cuts (a surplus) in order to reduce the debt payments.
It's not completely hopeless, but it's getting there. And it is going to require serious thought, not just continuing to ignore it.
Look, I'm a budget hawk. I want to fix this badly for the next generation. But it isn't easy. AT ALL. And making it worse by adding to the debt for tax cuts? If you paid any attention, you'll see that the three big debt events (from least serious to most serious) were:
1. The Bush 2 tax cuts.
2. The Great Recession (yeah, I'd put the spending spike on Obama as '09 and '10 were the worst in terms of debt growth).
3. The first Trump cuts and the Trump COVID spending in 2019-20.
But the tldr of all of this? As Elon Musk and DOGE learned, there's a lot less waste going on than people think. Not none- but a lot less. And getting rid of the low-hanging fruit doesn't get you anywhere. Even if you got rid of all of the 14% (and that means all courts, embassies, border enforcement, law enforcement, and so on)
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!
And, much to my surprise, seems to actually get to run the senate.
To hell with what the senators want to vote on, they didn't say "mother may I?".
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.
No; but John Thune could.
Or J D Vance in his role as president of the Senate.
That would be a huge conflict of interest, no? I thought the parliamentarian was supposed to be non-partisan rather than hyper-partisan.
So much for thinking.
Them's the rules. (according to the famously impartial Wikipedia)
The Senate majority leader may also fire the parliamentarian, as occurred in 2001 during a dispute between parliamentarian Robert Dove and Majority Leader Trent Lott.
The parliamentarian is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Senate majority leader.
And, oh by the way; The parliamentarian's salary was $216,591.63 for the 2024 fiscal year, which ran through September 2024.
So if he did name Trump there would be another impeachment over emoluments.
The Senate Parliamentarian ordered Trump to cancel the cease fire and declare war on Iran.
But , Ilya , she is only saying that procedurally it can't be done this way.
restrict the ability of judges to block government policies
I like the outcome, but not the procedure. The filibuster is incredibly undemocratic, violates at least the spirit of the constitution, and ought to be fully buried.
Um, I disagree with you about the filibuster being "undemocratic" or violating the "spirt of the [C]onstitution," for simple reasons.
First, it's simply a process of deliberation under rules. We elect the people to legislate, and they do so by rules. That's kind of orthogonal to democracy; if we don't like those rules, then we should elect people to change them. Which isn't that hard.
Second, filibusters date back to 1789. That's right- there was a filibuster in the first year of the first Congress. Pretty sure they have a better handle on the "spirit" or penumbras and emanations of the Constitution than we do.
With all of that said ... the modern process of using the idea of a filibuster to enact a procedural requirement for 60 votes without, um, an actual filibuster? Yeah, that's not cool. So before we get rid of the filibuster, let's make people actually do it. If they have to do it, then maybe it will happen a lot less. Let's start with that and re-evaluate.
(I would add that a rule that requires a filibuster ... all the talk ... to at least be somewhat related to the topic under deliberation would be nice, so we avoid people reading books out loud to waste time. If you're going to waste time, do it in style and with invective. And probably wearing depends.)
A couple of points:
First, although the filibuster has a long tradition it was only used when a minority of senators had a serious objection to a bill. It was not used as a matter of course so that 60 votes were required to pass every little single bill. Before 1914 there was no cloture and before 1977 it required a 2/3s vote. But our government functioned because senators did not use the filibuster except in extreme cases. Even up until the 1990s it wasn't used. Clinton's tax bill was not filibustered. Clarence Thomas' nomination was not filibustered.
Second, others have said that we should require talking filibusters, but that would simply give more power to the minority party. Have 20 senators on staff who take 1 hour shifts each and rotate them out and you have stopped the majority from doing anything ever. The minority would love the majority to accomplish nothing at all---no judges confirmed, nothing.
The filibuster has morphed from a nice little way for a minority to require more debate on a topic into something which has completely gridlocked government. It needs to go.
The constitution says that it takes a simple majority of the senate to pass a law, not 60%. Any rule that effectively allows 41% of the senate to block something violates the spirit of the constitution, and arguably the letter of it as well.
Just because someone took advantage of the rules in 1789 doesn't mean that they were somehow complying with the constitution. Politicians in 1789 exploited technical rules to subvert democracy just as politicians do today.
Finally, there is nothing that says the senate has to follow its rules in passing a bill. All the constitution says is that a majority of the senate is required. I would love to see the majority just straight up ignore the senate rules. So much effort seems to be wasted dealing with rules that have no teeth to begin with.
Well, the spirit of the constitution says the senators are supposed to look out for the interest of the states, not the people, so - - - - - - -
(Stupid amendments)
No, it is not Britain's virtual representation !!! A Senator looks out for all the people but not at the expense of his own State.