Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump issued a directive on Thursday instructing heads of federal agencies to seek financial security from activist groups that sue the government. This memo aims to make such groups financially accountable if federal courts determine that an injunction they request is unwarranted.
This development comes in the wake of the Trump administration facing over 90 lawsuits stemming from various executive orders and memos issued since January 20. Legal actions against these orders have been initiated by legal groups, labor organizations, and numerous state and local plaintiffs.
The memo mandates federal agencies to collaborate with Attorney General Pam Bondi to push federal courts to enforce a rule requiring financial guarantees for those seeking injunctions. This rule is aimed at limiting the frivolous lawsuits that place a burden on government resources.
While it is ultimately up to federal judges to determine whether to require such financial guarantees, the Department of Justice acts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). This allows them to request that judges enforce financial guarantees from plaintiffs commensurate to the possible costs and damages the federal government may incur due to an improperly granted preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
The implications of this memo extend to all lawsuits that seek preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders where the government can demonstrate potential financial harm due to the requested relief, according to a fact sheet released by the White House.
The White House emphasized that agencies are tasked with justifying the amount of financial security required, based on prudent assessments of potential damage. In scenarios where plaintiffs fail to provide the necessary financial backing, the memo asserts that courts should deny or dissolve injunctions unless good cause is presented.
In reinforcing these policies, the White House claims the executive order will address the issue of “activist judges” and enhance accountability among litigants. They assert that unelected district judges have, at times, issued extensive injunctions that exceed their jurisdiction, thereby interfering in executive policymaking and hindering initiatives that have popular support.
As legal challenges to the Trump administration progress, many cases are ascending to the Supreme Court. Recently, the Court delivered a close 5-4 ruling affirming a district judge’s order requiring the administration to allocate nearly $2 billion in foreign aid.
The ruling indicated that since the deadline set by the district court on February 26 for the Trump administration to satisfy funding contracts had lapsed, the matter would be redirected to the lower court to establish future payment arrangements.
The Court remarked that it is essential for the District Court to clarify the obligations of the Government in light of the now-overdue challenged order and the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings. Such clarifications should consider the practicality of any compliance timelines going forward.
Meanwhile, this memo could evoke mixed reactions among the legal community and the public. Critics argue that it may deter legitimate legal challenges against governmental actions, particularly those perceived to infringe on individual rights and public interests. Furthermore, opponents of the policy contend that financial barriers should not obstruct access to justice, especially for groups representing marginalized communities.
Proponents, however, laud the initiative as a necessary step to curb what they label as litigation excesses by activist groups that challenge executive decisions. They maintain that holding plaintiffs financially liable will prompt more responsible and judicious litigation practices.
This move aligns with other actions taken by the Trump administration aimed at reforming how federal courts handle cases involving government policies. By introducing measures that potentially limit the scope of lawsuits, the administration seeks to streamline legal challenges and mitigate what they view as judicial overreach.
The overall landscape suggests an evolving dynamic between governmental authority and judicial oversight, accentuated by the current administration’s approach to litigation. As the administration continues to grapple with numerous lawsuits, this directive may set a precedent that courts and litigants will navigate in the years to come.
As events unfold, the implications of this memorandum will likely resonate across the legal landscape. Watchers of judicial policy will be keen to observe how federal courts apply this directive in ongoing and future legal challenges against the Trump administration.
Fox News’ Kerri Urbahn and Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.
