In a bold move to protect America’s judicial system from abuse, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at stopping radical activist judges and far-left groups from burdening taxpayers with frivolous legal actions. This order comes as a response to the wave of legal challenges—119 in just two months—since his inauguration on January 20, 2025.
This executive action focuses on halting the reckless filing of frivolous injunctions, which are not only a drain on public funds but also a hindrance to enacting the policies that Americans voted for in the 2024 election. To date, a mere two of these numerous cases have been resolved.
The presidential memorandum directs the heads of executive departments and agencies to enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). This rule mandates that any party seeking a court injunction must first deposit funds or a bond to offset potential government costs, should the injunction be unjustified. This is a strategic move against those abusing the courts by filing meritless lawsuits to thwart government policies.
Far-left organizations have manipulated the legal system, often choosing sympathetic judges to challenge government actions, knowing they face no consequences if their cases fail. Instead, it is the taxpayers who bear the financial burden when government initiatives are stalled by these unwarranted court orders.
The memorandum instructs federal agencies to ensure that plaintiffs provide adequate financial security upfront to cover any potential governmental losses. This must be done in consultation with the Attorney General, ensuring that the requested amount is well-justified to the court.
The aim is clear: deter the misuse of the judicial system by making it financially onerous for frivolous lawsuits that might unjustly impede government action. As stated in the executive order:
“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.”
Americans are tired of seeing their tax dollars wasted on legal antics that delay pivotal government policies. Additionally, these situations siphon resources from the Department of Justice, which could be better utilized in safeguarding public safety.
Effective administration of justice is predicated on mechanisms that prevent frivolous litigation and protect American taxpayers. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) plays a critical role by requiring security deposits for injunctions, ensuring that those who misuse the system are held accountable.
As such, the United States asserts a firm policy: parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must shoulder the costs and damages if the Government is wrongfully enjoined. Federal courts should enforce accountability for any misrepresentations and unwarranted injunctions.
When seeking security under Rule 65(c), agencies must:
- Ensure that the court requires security from any movant for an injunction in applicable cases.
- Base the security amount on a calculated assessment of potential harm to the enjoined party.
- Recognize that non-compliance with Rule 65(c) by those requesting preliminary relief will result in the denial or dissolution of that relief.
