While much of the buzz surrounding the Reconciliation Act – officially titled H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – focuses on the potential deregulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles, a lesser-known provision buried deep in the text could devastate gun rights litigation and other constitutional challenges. According to the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Subtitle B, Section 203 of the bill poses a dangerous barrier to Americans seeking court protection from unconstitutional government actions.
The Bond Requirement: Justice for the Wealthy Only
As described in a formal letter from the FPC sent to Senators John Thune and Chuck Schumer on June 20, 2025, the provision would require plaintiffs to post a financial bond, potentially millions or even billions of dollars, before a court could issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the federal government. This bond would be intended to cover “costs and damages” the government might suffer if the injunction is later overturned.
William Kirk Warns: Gun Owners Should Be Alarmed
William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law and a leading voice in Second Amendment law, sounded the alarm in a recent YouTube video. “We are not talking about suppressors or short-barreled rifles,” he said. “We’re talking about a provision that could completely thwart our ability to challenge unconstitutional laws moving forward.” Kirk credited journalist John Petrolino and the FPC for uncovering the language hidden on page 92 of the bill, warning that its real effect would be to price most Americans out of the courtroom.
What the Law Actually Says
Kirk read the bill’s language on air, which plainly states: “No court of the United States may issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against the federal government if no security is given… in an amount proper to pay the cost and damages sustained.” The courts would not be allowed to consider anything other than the monetary value of the alleged costs. This determination would also be appealable only under an “abuse of discretion” standard – one of the most difficult legal standards to overcome.
A Nightmare Scenario for Constitutional Litigants
In their letter, FPC leaders Brandon Combs and Cody Wisniewski laid out several nightmare scenarios: a nonprofit trying to block an unconstitutional federal search could be shut out for lack of funds; a religious school might be forced to comply with a burdensome federal rule while being unable to afford a bond; and small businesses, often on the brink, could be crippled before a judge even hears their case. Most disturbing, a person facing an immediate constitutional violation – say, an illegal firearm restriction – could be blocked from relief without posting a massive bond.
Why This Isn’t Just About Gun Rights
FPC is clear: this is not a partisan issue. “This is a financial blockade on constitutional accountability,” the letter warns. The danger doesn’t just threaten Second Amendment litigation – it could stifle cases involving free speech, religious liberty, due process, and more. “Access to justice would hinge on wealth, not merit,” they wrote, “leaving Americans of all political stripes without recourse when their rights are violated.” William Kirk echoed this view, noting that regardless of political leanings, “you could be victimized in this exact fashion.”
The Courts’ Last Line of Defense, Under Attack
Both Kirk and the FPC emphasize the crucial role that preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders play in stopping illegal government actions before irreversible harm occurs. “These injunctions are only granted when a court determines the plaintiff is likely to prevail,” the letter explains. In other words, a judge already believes the plaintiff has a strong case, but under the new rule, that wouldn’t matter. What would matter is how much money you have.
FPC’s Broader Coalition
The FPC isn’t standing alone. Their letter is co-signed by a coalition of legal and civil rights organizations from across the spectrum. Though many focus on gun rights, the broader concern is systemic: if this provision is enacted, it sets a precedent that government misconduct can be shielded not by law, but by cost. As Kirk put it, “The days of groups like FPC, Gun Owners of America, or the Second Amendment Foundation being able to challenge unconstitutional laws – those days could be numbered.”
The Quiet End of Constitutional Remedies
Here’s where I have to weigh in. This provision is terrifying not because it makes headlines, but because it doesn’t. It’s the sort of quiet bureaucratic trap that reshapes the battlefield without firing a shot. The government isn’t banning guns here; it’s banning the tools you need to fight a ban. This isn’t just a poison pill for the Reconciliation Act – it’s a time bomb under the entire idea of justice. If rights only matter when you can afford to defend them, they aren’t rights anymore. They’re privileges for the wealthy.
Kirk: You Don’t Have to Imagine a Worst-Case Scenario – It’s Here
In his video, Kirk invites viewers to imagine a government controlled by anti-gun ideologues, passing sweeping legislation banning semi-automatics, magazines, or even mandatory fingerprinting for all purchases. “Would you want the ability of a district court to issue a nationwide injunction in that moment?” he asked. Under Section 203, that ability could vanish, not because of a judge’s disagreement, but because the plaintiffs can’t afford the bond.
What the Reconciliation Act Gives With One Hand, It Could Take With the Other
Ironically, while parts of the Reconciliation Act offer hope for gun owners, like pulling suppressors and SBRs out from under the NFA, this single paragraph could gut the ability to challenge any new federal gun restrictions in court. As Kirk puts it, “You got your eyes on another prize… but understand that if this becomes reality, the days of successfully challenging unconstitutional laws could be over.”
The Cost of Justice Can’t Be Set This High
If this provision passes, the courts won’t be judging cases by their merit, but by the plaintiff’s bank account. The Firearms Policy Coalition, Washington Gun Law, and others have raised the alarm early, but time is short. Subtitle B, Section 203 of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act may look like technical legalese buried deep in a thick document, but its consequences would be felt far and wide.
As the FPC warns: “No government should be allowed to insulate itself from judicial review by making it prohibitively expensive for Americans to protect their rights.” They’re right – and if this clause survives, the Constitution could become little more than a promissory note, valid only for those who can afford the court fees.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.