The Senate Committee quietly stripped this section from the Big Beautiful Bill:

[surfered]

“No court of the United States may 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.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/senate-republicans-big-beautiful-bill-contempt-courts-trump_n_684b9b3be4b0c4fd78ff7f2e

OP-Senate Republicans may have grown a tiny bit of spine

[lark]

1. No spine at all, just following the Byrd rule to avoid sinking the whole bill.

I expected this to happen and am glad it did.

[JBTaurus83]

2. Good news!

I was hoping they would take some of this out.

[malaise]

3. Get thee to the greatest page for visibility

Rec

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. The Senate Parliamentarian properly rejected this provision under reconciliation rules

When the Senate decided to not bypass the Senate Parliamentarian, this provision was doomed
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220362244

[unblock]

5. not sure it's exactly "spine" to remove a section of a bill that got negative press. plus,

i'll want to check the bill in its final form.

it would be completely typical republican slimy procedure to remove this from the senate version, then have the house-senate reconciliation committee re-insert it at the last minute before final passage, or attach it to some other bill later.

for the moment, i'll accept that, with those caveats, this is a drop of good news in an ocean of disaster.

[highplainsdem]

6. Very good news!

[Baitball Blogger]

7. Not hard to grow a spine when Trump is polling at 38%

[highplainsdem]

8. Dammit. They replaced it with something worse. See this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220393360

[surfered]

9. -

[obamanut2012]

10. They put in something worse