X user reveals how DOGE can beat left-wing activist judges at their own game…

Revolver.News ^ | February 11, 2025 | Revolver Staff

[packagingguy]

@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds.

This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used!

When I was in the White House, in Trump’s first term, I suggested this, but DOJ didn’t make it happen. Imagine if we had applied this to the travel ban – activists would think twice before blocking policies with potentially billions at stake.

The government has expert economists who can easily price out the cost of policies like birthright citizenship or wasteful spending. Price injunction bonds fairly, and frivolous lawsuits become a financial risk, not a free pass.

Without injunction bonds, the American people bear all the costs of activists and judges blocking the agenda they voted for. Why should activists and judges get to overrule the American people with no penalty if they’re wrong? Our system wasn’t meant to work this way.

For national injunctions, we’re talking bonds in the hundreds of millions or even billions. It will become prohibitive unless the activists have a slam dunk case.

If a judge tries to lowball the bond amount, it’s a quick and easy reversal given the unambiguous language in the federal rules...

This doesn’t block activists from court; it just stops them from using preliminary injunctions to pause government action based on arguments that might not hold up in an appellate court.

[Organic Panic]

IIRC anyone can file a complaint agaisnt the gov in Alaska. Apparently Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck didn’t like her either. So messed up.

[Brian Griffin]

H.R.8771 - Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2025
118th Congress (2023-2024)

Sponsor: Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-26] (Introduced 06/14/2024)

....

Department Of State

migration and refugee assistance

For necessary expenses not otherwise provided for, to enable the Secretary of State to carry out the provisions of section 2(a) and (b) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (22 U.S.C. 2601), and other activities to meet refugee and migration needs; salaries and expenses of personnel and dependents as authorized by the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.); allowances as authorized by sections 5921 through 5925 of title 5, United States Code; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $2,453,236,000 (reduced by $500,000,000), to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $6,500,000 shall be made available for refugees resettling in Israel

....

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8771/text

[Robert357]

Love it. Bankrupt the DNC and all the unions that support blocking Trump.

[Brian Griffin]

There needs to be an injunction against the government funding of religious charities: Catholic, Lutheran, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

And no, I shouldn’t have to post an injunction bond for that.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You want to stop activist Judges? Suspend their paychecks.

That is the wrong kind of hardball; the price of an independent judiciary is that even tendentious judges are independent.

Next thing you know, some Democrat executive is doing the same to SCOTUS justices of whom we approve.

Andrew Jackson showed the hardball approach - he basically said, as Stalin put it, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

Not that this isn’t dangerous, but in the most extreme case the executive always has that in his (for now) hip pocket. Joe Biden ignored SCOTUS WRT student loans, and Andrew Jackson implemented the Trail of Tears removal of the “Indians” to Oklahoma. Those are not reputable examples. But if time were truly of the essence in emergencies, ignoring the ruling of some inferior judge could become necessary.

But if the damage of a tendentious ruling is tolerable, stick with the devil you know, and appeal. Ultimately we have a pretty trustworthy SCOTUS, after all. That is wonderful; I am old enough to remember the Warren Court.🤮

[blitz128]

Sick big balls on them and their financial and internet history

[Palio di Siena]

I would add that ex partite injunctions against the executive branch should be disallowed - that would slow their roll

[rolling_stone]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65

rule 65

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

I’m an attorney. It is a refreshing thought, but the text of the rule grants discretion to the Judge issuing the injunction:

“No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained..”

...”as the court deems proper”.