Posted on 03/13/2025 5:24:17 AM PDT by CodeToad
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Subject: Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)
In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even Government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process.
This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail. Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for Government policies they voted for. Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the Nation’s chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety.
The effective administration of justice in the Federal courts depends on mechanisms that deter frivolous litigation, protect parties from unwarranted costs, and streamline judicial processes. One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued. Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.
Consistent with applicable law, the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies), in consultation with the Attorney General, are directed to ensure that their respective agencies properly request under Rule 65(c) that Federal district courts require plaintiffs to post security equal to the Federal Government’s potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction. The scope of this directive covers all lawsuits filed against the Federal Government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception.
In requests for security under Rule 65(c), agencies shall include, among other things, that:
(a) Rule 65(c) mandates the court to require, in all applicable cases, that a movant for an injunction post security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party;
(b) the security amount the agency is requesting is based on a reasoned assessment of the potential harm to the enjoined or restrained party; and
(c) failure of the party that moved for preliminary relief to comply with Rule 65(c) results in denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
And if any judge refuses to enforce this, move to impeach!
If no bond is posted, does that void the TRO’s currently in place since January 20th?
Anti republic, there is no democracy in America.
From where do the federal courts get their authority to order the President of the United States to do, or not to do something which clearly involves executive discretion?
“that the court considers proper”
Oh, that will fix everything...
Not as if the court is any part of the problem.
This must be what Geller put out yesterday, with her own interpretation.
This pleases me.
Geller’s comments is why I posted this. I thought the Geller comments were a bit off, too strong, so I looked up the EO list and didn’t find the Geller claimed EO, but I did find this item.
M’man DJT!
Suppose the courts consider that a single dollar is sufficient?
Should have the mandate part bolted and capitalized
Zero is probably most likely anyway.
Yea, liberal judges will consider $1 to be the proper amount.
A step in the right direction. No reason why disrupters should be able to use the courts freely and at will to take free shots at the administration and hinder its functioning.
My guess is, dems will claim that any kind of bond or security required will make lawsuits impossible for anyone except the rich.
Simple really...
LOSER PAYS.
“Loser Pays” sounds nice until you work in the legal system and find it is very random such that a perfectly good suit gets stomped. Do you really want to gamble on that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.