Legal scholar: GOP budget move could undermine judicial power 'framers knew was essential'

DETROIT (FOX 2) - A provision tucked deep inside the House GOP's sprawling budget bill is raising constitutional red flags among legal experts. The measure would limit courts’ ability to enforce contempt findings, a move that could blunt one of the judiciary’s most powerful tools for ensuring compliance with its rulings.

Brian Marks, J.D., Ph.D., a legal scholar at the University of New Haven, said the proposal runs counter to the very structure of American governance laid out in the founding era.

What they're saying:

"In 1803, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, it became clear the role of the Supreme Court and, quite frankly, the judiciary in interpreting the constitutionality of statutes and the application of the Constitution," Marks told FOX 2’s Hilary Golston. "Our whole constitutional design... it is structured to provide for three branches."

The budget provision would require plaintiffs to post a bond before a judge’s contempt order could be enforced, something rarely done in lawsuits against the government. Critics argue it’s a quiet attempt to sideline judicial authority, particularly in cases where courts have clashed with the executive branch over immigration, deportations, and executive orders.

Marks pointed to the founders’ deliberate decision to insulate the judiciary from political winds. "The framers knew from the start the judiciary... were going to be appointed... so, that’s a recognition of the role of the judiciary throughout."

The proposal comes as some Trump-aligned officials question whether the executive branch should comply with every court ruling, especially those issued by lower courts. But Marks emphasized the long-standing understanding that the Constitution itself vests interpretive authority in the courts.

"We have a Constitution of the United States… it clearly defines the powers of each branch," he said. "We can look at the Federalist Papers, the 1803 decision, and subsequent decisions from the Supreme Court made the Supreme Court the arbiter of disputes with respect to cases and controversies with respect to constitutional matters."

"Although there are some who believe in the unitary executive, I don’t think that’s the frame in which our founders constructed our constitutional framework," he added.

What's next:

For now, the contempt provision remains stalled along with the larger budget bill, but its inclusion has drawn a line in the sand over the separation of powers. Legal scholars say the implications go far beyond procedural tweaks; it’s a test of whether the branches of government will continue to respect the limits previously set.

Watch FOX 2 News Live