AOTL logo [[link removed]]

Hi John!

Today, I want to talk to you about an obscure and dangerous part of what Donald Trump is referring to as his “big, beautiful bill,” aka the devastating reconciliation package that the House passed last month.

Buried in the text is the following provision that reads:

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to 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.”

So, what does this even mean? At a glance, the provision might seem minor or too technical to have big implications. But in reality, it would have severe consequences on our checks and balances, and would encourage more lawless attempts to defy court rulings. This provision aims to limit courts’ ability to enforce certain types of urgent requests from plaintiffs and advocates.

So, why does it matter? This provision would prohibit courts from enforcing certain rulings that have an immediate effect. Among those types of rulings, this new rule could particularly affect rulings made on an emergency basis against a government action — such as challenges against Donald Trump’s attempts to weaponize the federal government, while also potentially rendering hundreds and hundreds of other court orders in cases unrelated to Trump completely unenforceable. (That’s very bad for those of us who believe in the rule of law.)

Finally, here’s how it’s relevant to our work at All On The Line: Of course, this kind of provision would affect countless issues. For our work, if it were to become law, it could encourage more mapmakers to act like Alabama did in the face of a preliminary injunction. Faced with a map that violated the law, our affiliate at the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) won a court order to toss the map, which the Supreme Court affirmed in its decision in Allen v. Milligan. If this provision had been in effect, voters could have faced even more costs and barriers in their long struggle for fair maps — or even been powerless to make mapmakers in Alabama follow the law.

The rule of law is a foundational piece of the fair maps movement and our work in ending extreme partisan and racial gerrymandering, and we need courts to be able to enforce their rulings.

We need to stop this extreme, dangerous provision from becoming law, John. Will you make a contribution to All On The Line and help fight for fair maps and hold gerrymandering lawmakers accountable? → [link removed]

DONATE → [link removed]

At this perilous moment in our nation’s history, we need our checks and balances and the rule of law more than ever.

I’ll be in touch soon with more on this.

Thanks!
Art

Deputy Director of Litigation
All On The Line

DONATE → [link removed]









All On The Line [[link removed]] is the grassroots advocacy campaign supported by the National Redistricting Action Fund. Support our work to end gerrymandering.

Text FAIR to 88228 to receive recurring updates from AOTL by automated text message. Text HELP for help, STOP to end. Msg & Data rates may apply. Privacy policy [[link removed]] and Terms of service. [[link removed]]

DONATE → [link removed]












PAID FOR BY THE NATIONAL REDISTRICTING ACTION FUND.
Contributions or gifts to The National Redistricting Action Fund are not tax deductible.
712 H St NE, Suite #25, Washington, DC, 20002
This email was sent to:[email protected]
unsubscribe: [link removed]