I just wrote about this last Friday that there was a way for Trump's administration to use Federal Rule of Procedure 65 (c) to slow and block cases by making plaintiffs put up a bond as part of the requirement for a case to go forward. Before that I wrote how the Federal Programs Branch had been cut in half by DOGE and the resulting overload on the lawyers that were left.
Yesterday, Trump made use of the rule clear with a memorandum called:
Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 65(c).
"In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes Government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions..." with lawsuits against the Trump Administration.
The amount of money quoted is ridiculous. And then he implies that government funds are being used to fuel the lawsuits against the government. Ridiculous. But when this is in the lead paragraph, MAGA will jump right on it. There was a fact sheet put out about this on March 6th, which prompted my second story. But now, the government gloves are off. It's now not just using the rule, but a public relations campaign against all the lawsuits.
These lawsuits are "...inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process."
We are no longer allowed to question or criticize our government. There used to be something known as redressing your grievances against the government. That's how it works. That's what America is all about.
"This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail."
It's democracy at work, not anti-democratic. Forum-shopping is what Trump and the Republicans do. Filing a case in Washington D.C. is not forum-shopping. It's part of their playbook of meritless lawsuits. These aren't meritless lawsuits. They are trying to save democracy from your administration.
"Taxpayers ... must needlessly wait for government policies they've voted for."
The problem is, nobody voted for the policies you're talking about. Increasingly, you're finding that out. That's why there are the lawsuits.
And because the lawsuits are working, the Department of Justice has to dedicate "substantial resources to fighting frivolous lawsuits instead of defending public safety."
It's up to 119 cases on the Just Security Litigation Tracker today. That's just the start. Trump wouldn't have be having to deal with so many lawsuits if he was following the law. That's why there are so many lawsuits.
The rule "mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damage to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued."
There it is, "security in an amount." However, as I covered in the previous stories, a judge first has to agree to the bond in the first place, and then has to set an amount that makes sense. There's nothing, however, preventing a judge from setting a bond of zero dollars.
"Consistent enforcement of this rule..." Consistent enforcement, in this case, would mean never asking for the bond in the first place, because the rule is rarely, if ever, been used in a case against the government.
"...costs and damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief issued by activist judges and to achiev(e) the effective of administration of justice."
Activist judges. Frankly, I've never heard such balderdash and public relations garbage in an executive order. When Trump loses a case because it was illegal in the first case, it's because of an activist judge making a wrong decision. Anything against Trump has to be by its very nature, wrong.
"Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions."
You can't hold a injunction as ill-granted just because it was granted. Misrepresentations. I seriously doubt that that is happening in a single case. These are not frivolous lawsuits. It's the Trump administration that files those.
Then, the memorandum goes on to say that all agencies facing lawsuits need to enforce Federal Civil Rule 65(c), and the Attorney General will help out with any necessary legal advice.
"Rule 65(c) mandates the court to require, all applicable cases, that a movant for an injunction post security in an amount court considers proper to cover potential cost to the enjoined or restrained party."
Out of the 119 cases against the Trump Administration, I can't see where a single one of them generates any cost to the government. Government lawyers and staff are already paid with their salaries. A good deal of them are about the government holding back funds for all sorts of agencies. That holding back costs far more than anything that could possibly cost the government. The cancellation of contracts alone is going to result in thousands of lawsuits, if the contract holders can't afford to at least hire a lawyer to place the claim. Some of them are already going out of business due to canceled contracts.
"Failure of the party that moved for preliminary relief to comply with Rule 65(c) results in denial or dissolusion of the requested injunctive relief."
That's clear. But first, a judge has to agree that Rule 65(c) should ever apply to a case against the government. Using this rule is a complete long shot by the government.
The last case using the rule in which the government is the defendant, was in 2014. At least, that's what I found after spending a good amount of time searching for instances of the rule being used.
There was one of these cases against the Trump Administration recently, where a judge decided all on their own to impose a $10,000 security bond when the government hadn't even asked for it. The judge did not explain why the security was imposed.
The game is afoot. Trump has snatched an obscure rule that the government almost never uses and wants it applied to every case.
So far, only one judge has used the rule. The likelihood is that it may be applied again. I just don't see how the government can claim a cost to an injunction or restraining order. Letting the government go forward and work is saving costs.
The only convincing argument would be if the government still has to pay government employees instead of firing them. But when the act of firing them is in itself illegal, which judges are finding in every case, I don't see how security could be requested reasonably.
The Trump Administration is using the Department of Justice to basically impose Trump's will on individuals, states, government agencies, bureaus, and departments. So far, judges aren't falling for it.
119 cases can't be all wrong.
