HR1 §70302 says
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.
This provision has drawn criticism as being a means to shield the Federal government from Federal court authority, but how is this actually so?
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) says
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.
The answer to What does SEC. 70302 of the "Big Beautiful Bill" actually do? explains the provision itself clearly enough, but it doesn't speak to the circumstances under which that provision is relevant. Per rule 65, the Federal courts must not issue preliminary injunctions or TROs for movants other than the Federal government without the movant putting up security judged adequate by the court. If the movant does not do so then there should be no preliminary injunction or TRO in the first place (right?), independent of §70302. And if they do put up security then §70302 does not appear to limit the court's enforcement ability. Do the Federal courts commonly ignore / violate rule 65?
I'm sure it is not the intended effect, but inasmuch as the government is the only movant not required to provide security (per rule 65), it seems, on the face of it, that the only effect of §70302 should be to prevent the courts from enforcing preliminary injunctions and TROs granted to the government.
