Republican senators are about to get an earful from conservatives and likely even the president himself as soon as they get back from the week-long Memorial Day recess. That’s because a key demand of President Trump’s — that federal judges’ powers in issuing nationwide injunctions be restricted — is almost certainly going to be stripped from his “one big beautiful bill.”

Conservatives and the White House have been demanding for months that Congress do something to “rein in” district court judges who have issued orders that have blocked key administration policies, including deportation operations, DOGE’s canceling of federal funds, and Mr. Trump’s attempt to close the Department of Education, among other things. 

In the House, lawmakers have already passed the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would limit judges’ power in issuing injunctions so that the orders would apply only to the individuals who come to their courts. The legislation states that judges may not hand down “any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court.”

Senator Grassley has introduced similar legislation in the Senate, though it has yet to receive a vote. 

Lawmakers were unable to get either of those bills into the current text of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was passed by the House last week. They are, however, trying to use federal spending powers to curb the enforceability of nationwide injunctions in an effort to avoid the filibuster. 

In section 70302 of the current reconciliation bill, the House approved language that would bar judges from using federal funds to enforce contempt citations against individuals in certain circumstances. If a party — in this likely case for conservatives, the government itself — is not granted “security” from those who win a temporary restraining order or injunction, then a judge cannot bring those contempt proceedings. 

The reason for this kind of language in the bill is still aimed at curbing judges’ powers in issuing some nationwide injunctions and subsequent contempt proceedings if the government fails to comply. At least one federal judge has already said that the Trump administration violated his court order related to deportation flights. Another, Judge James Boasberg, has said there is probable cause that the White House defied his ruling, which could lead to contempt proceedings. 

This provision of the House bill, however, is likely to die a quick death in the Senate, enraging Mr. Trump and conservative media personalities who have complained that Congress isn’t doing enough to support the president. 

For reconciliation packages to get through the Senate, every provision of the bill must comply with the “Byrd Rule,”  named for the longtime West Virginia senator. It says that all parts of a reconciliation bill are required to deal only with federal spending and revenues. Anything that deals with non-budgetary policy changes must instead get 60 votes in the Senate. 

Democrats lost several key policy goals in their own reconciliation fights in 2021 and 2022 because of the Byrd Rule. Senator Sanders’s push for a $15 an hour minimum wage and a provision to cap insulin prices for those with private health insurance were both taken out after the legislation went through the “Byrd bath.”

Because this new measure to restrict judges’ contempt powers and, with it, the feasibility of enforcing nationwide injunctions does not have a great deal to do with federal spending powers, it is nearly certain to die in the Senate. 

The blowback from Mr. Trump himself could be biblical. He has called judges who had ruled against him radical leftists who ought to be removed from their positions. His deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, has taken to calling some of these jurists Communists and Marxists. 

Like with Mr. Sanders’s minimum wage push, the issue of the filibuster could become much more salient once conservatives learn that the Senate’s parliamentarian is blocking a key goal of the president. Senator Thune has said that such a significant rule change is not on the table, though it would take only 51 votes to — if not abolish it — then to significantly change the filibuster so that the provision curtailing judges’ powers could move forward.