📢 Exclusive on Gate Square — #PROVE Creative Contest# is Now Live!
CandyDrop × Succinct (PROVE) — Trade to share 200,000 PROVE 👉 https://www.gate.com/announcements/article/46469
Futures Lucky Draw Challenge: Guaranteed 1 PROVE Airdrop per User 👉 https://www.gate.com/announcements/article/46491
🎁 Endless creativity · Rewards keep coming — Post to share 300 PROVE!
📅 Event PeriodAugust 12, 2025, 04:00 – August 17, 2025, 16:00 UTC
📌 How to Participate
1.Publish original content on Gate Square related to PROVE or the above activities (minimum 100 words; any format: analysis, tutorial, creativ
Trump is caught in a judicial range-bound battle, and the White House has long prepared a "lawless pass."
BlockBeats News: On May 30, critics pointed out that there is a provision in US President Donald Trump's comprehensive tax and spending bill that would weaken the power of US judges to demand that the government enforce court rulings if the government ignores court orders. The one-sentence clause in the 1,100-page "Big Beauty Act" prohibits federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiff has paid a monetary bond — a rare case in a case against the government. The federal courts have been the main counterweight to Mr. Trump's second term, and the plaintiffs in dozens of cases have succeeded in getting judges to block White House policy. In the vast majority of these cases, no bond is required, so if the provisions of the House bill become law, judges will not be able to enforce contempt orders. While no judge has issued a contempt order, multiple federal judges have noted that Trump administration officials appear to be ignoring court orders and may face contempt charges. The House of Representatives passed the "Beautiful Big Bill" by a margin of one vote on May 22, and no Democratic lawmakers supported it. The bill is currently before the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority of seats. Several Republicans said they would seek changes to the bill. On May 20, 21 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson urging that the provision be removed from the bill. "This provision will invalidate a valid injunction and render the courts powerless to respond in the face of blatant acts of defiance," the letter said.