By Nate Raymond

(Reuters) – U.S. Senate Republicans have added provisions to President Donald Trump’s tax and spending bill that would restrict judges’ ability to block unlawful government policies.

Late Thursday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Grassley, released text limiting judges from issuing preliminary injunctions against federal policies unless the suing party posts a bond to cover potential government costs if the ruling is later overturned.

This bond requirement differs from the House of Representatives’ version that curtails judges’ power in other ways, such as limiting enforcement options when officials violate injunctions. Judges often use contempt orders to ensure compliance, which may involve fines or jail time. Some judges have indicated that officials could face contempt if they ignore their orders, particularly those blocking Trump administration actions.

Congressional Republicans are advocating for the banning or limiting of nationwide injunctions after significant parts of Trump’s agenda have been hindered by court rulings. The House had previously voted 219-213 in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act aimed at this issue, but no action has been taken in the Senate yet.

In March, a White House memo directed agency heads to request bonds from plaintiffs seeking injunctions against agency policies, which could deter such actions in cases involving multi-billion-dollar agenda items.

Grassley’s statement noted the Judiciary Committee’s proposal aims to enforce the existing requirement for a security bond from parties seeking preliminary injunctions to cover defendants’ costs if the ruling is overturned. Judges rarely require bonds in cases involving unlawful government actions, and many have denied the Trump administration’s requests for bonds or issued nominal ones.

Republicans, holding a 53-47 majority in the Senate, are leveraging budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority instead of the 60 votes usually needed for most legislation.

The bill’s provisions would also allocate funds for the judiciary to study taxpayer costs associated with injunctions and for training judges on related issues.

A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s leading Democrat, criticized the Republican legislation, asserting that “Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they’re beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not.”