Conservative and Libertarian Public Interest Group Letter Opposing “Big Beautiful Bill” Provision that Undermines Access to Justice
In a previous post, I criticized a dangerous provision of the Senate version of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that would radically undermine judicial protection for constitutional rights by requiring litigants seeking preliminary injunctions against illegal federal government actions to post potentially enormous bonds. There, I highlighted a critique by Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, who was previously a prominent libertarian public interest litigation.
Yesterday, a coalition of major, mostly libertarian and conservative, – public interest group leaders submitted a letter to the Senate opposing this provision and urging Congress to reject it. Signatories include leaders of the Firearms Policy Coalition (which organized the letter), the Institute for Justice, FIRE, the Goldwater Institute, the Liberty Justice Center, and more. Here is an excerpt from the letter:
We write as a coalition of organizations who rely on the federal judiciary to uphold
constitutionally protected rights and serve as a check on unlawful government action. We
are gravely concerned about a proposed provision in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s
language of the reconciliation package (Subtitle B, Section 203 of H.R. 1, the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act) that, if enacted, would mandate that courts require security in order to
issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal
government, effectively shutting down access to justice for most Americans.
As it stands today, this provision would require a bond that covers the “costs and
damages” sustained by the government if it were to ultimately prevail in the case. We’re
talking upwards of millions, if not billions, of dollars that could be required upfront,
effectively shutting off people’s ability to enjoin the federal government from causing
irreparable harm….This is not a partisan issue—it’s a direct threat to constitutional accountability. If
enacted, this provision could seriously impair meritorious public interest litigation across the board, no matter the issue or ideology. The substance of a claim wouldn’t matter. What would matter is whether the plaintiff can afford to pay. Access to justice woul
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
