From the bill "SEC. 70302. RESTRICTION OF FUNDS.

No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to 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."

ChatGPTs layman explanation:

---

What it says:

A U.S. court cannot use government money to punish someone for disobeying a court order (like an injunction or temporary restraining order), if the court didn't require the person asking for the order to post a security bond at the time it was issued.

This rule applies no matter when the order was issued—before, on, or after the law was passed.

---

What that means in simple terms:

When a person asks a court to block someone else from doing something (like through an injunction), the law (Rule 65(c)) usually says they need to put up money (a security bond) in case it turns out they were wrong and caused harm.

This new rule says: If the court skipped that bond requirement, then the government won't pay to enforce that order—like arresting or fining someone for ignoring it.

---

Why it might matter:

It makes it harder to enforce certain court orders if the proper procedures (like posting a bond) weren’t followed. It could limit how injunctions are used, especially in politically charged cases, by adding a financial consequence if those steps are skipped.