The Senate parliamentarian has determined that a provision aimed at limiting nationwide injunctions is not eligible for inclusion in President Donald Trump’s proposed legislation. Senate Democrats successfully pushed for the removal of this provision from the Republicans’ comprehensive domestic policy bill, which sought to restrict the ability of courts to block federal government policies with injunctions or restraining orders.
The Democrats are scrutinizing various aspects of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” to ensure compliance with Senate budget rules that allow Republicans to advance legislation without needing a 60-vote majority in the chamber. According to a Democratic aide on the Senate Budget Committee, the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that the provision did not align with the “Byrd rule,” which mandates that provisions must be directly related to taxes or spending.
The provision was added by Senate Republicans in response to a series of federal court rulings that have hindered President Trump’s policy agenda, particularly in the realms of immigration enforcement and government downsizing. The proposed language would have required individuals seeking an injunction to pay a fee equivalent to the costs and damages the federal government might incur if it ultimately prevailed in the case.
Senator Dick Durbin, a senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, criticized the provision as an attempt to obstruct challenges to controversial executive actions by the Trump administration. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer applauded the decision to strike the provision, characterizing it as an assault on the system of checks and balances that underpins American democracy.
The parliamentarian’s ruling means that the provision is now subject to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Republicans can still attempt to reintroduce it, but they lack the necessary votes to overcome Democratic opposition. Senator Chuck Grassley’s office criticized Democrats for contesting the provision, accusing them of advocating for “open borders” in reference to court decisions that have blocked aspects of Trump’s immigration policies.
The Grassley spokesperson stated that the Biden-Harris administration’s policies have created a mess that needs to be cleaned up, and emphasized the importance of ensuring that courts operate within lawful and constitutional standards. House Republicans passed a different version of this provision, which some legal experts believe may be unconstitutional as it could weaken the courts’ ability to hold government officials accountable for not following court orders.
Before the bill can reach Trump’s desk, the two chambers of Congress must come to an agreement on a single version, with the goal of doing so by July 4. The Trump administration is also pursuing another avenue to address nationwide injunctions by having a pending case at the Supreme Court that seeks to limit the impact of rulings that have blocked a controversial policy on automatic birthright citizenship.
