• Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
Editor's Pick

I was a White House lawyer and I found Trump’s way around the left’s lawfare roadblocks

by February 21, 2025
written by February 21, 2025
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to reinstate millions in paused foreign aid. It is the latest in a string of cases in which activists have won preliminary injunctions blocking almost every major Trump administration reform. 

These are pre-trial injunctions, meaning the blocked reforms may ultimately be upheld, just as the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban over a year after it was halted just weeks into President Donald Trump’s first term. 

But the judges issuing these injunctions are themselves breaking the law by failing to require the plaintiffs to post injunction bonds in case they ultimately lose. 

Federal district courts are governed by a set of rules proposed by the Supreme Court and ratified by Congress. They have the full force of law. Rule 65(c) permits courts to issue preliminary injunctions ‘only if’ the plaintiff posts bond in an amount that ‘the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined.’ The rule is designed both to make the defendant whole and to deter frivolous claims. As Justice Stevens explained, the bond is the plaintiff’s ‘warranty that the law will uphold the issuance of the injunction.’ 

The language of the injunction bond requirement is mandatory and that is how it was enforced for 40 years. Then, as liberal activists adopted litigation as a policy weapon, these bonds ‘which may involve very large sums of money,’ emerged as a major ‘obstacle’ to their agenda. Sympathetic judges came to the rescue by declaring injunction bonds discretionary. 

The pivot began with just two sentences in a Sixth Circuit opinion. The court reasoned that the rule’s directive to set the amount of the bond at ‘such sum as the court deems proper’ allows the trial judge to dispense with the bond altogether. 

The problem is that this is not what 65(c) says. The court deceptively edited the rule’s text by truncating the end which directs judges to choose an amount proper to pay a wrongfully enjoined defendant’s ‘costs and damages.’ University of North Carolina law Prof. Dan B. Dobbs criticized the decision, noting that there ‘was no other discussion of the point, by way of analysis, legislative history, or precedent, which, indeed, seems to have been wholly lacking.’ 

Nevertheless, other courts followed suit and, by 1985, about half of jurisdictions treated the bond requirement as discretionary, either by ignoring it or nominalizing the amount. Their approach is flatly contradicted by both the text and history of 65(c), which demonstrate a deliberate decision to make bonds mandatory. 

Rule 65(c) dates to the Judicial Code of 1926. It­­s language came directly from the Clayton Act which provided that no injunction shall issue ‘except upon the giving of security’ and explicitly repealed a provision in the Judiciary Act of 1911 placing injunction bonds ‘in the discretion of the court.’ 

Similarly, without any textual basis, activist judges have concocted a public interest exception. It began in the ’60s with welfare recipients suing to remove limits on their benefits and environmentalists trying to block projects like the expansion of the San Francisco airport. Soon, judges were issuing injunctions without any bond if they felt the cases implicated ‘important social considerations.’ In a case involving union elections, the First Circuit fashioned a balancing test weighing factors including the impact on the plaintiff’s federal rights, the relative power of the parties, and the ability to pay. 

None of this finds any warrant in the code. At best, these policy considerations justify amending the bond requirement, not ignoring it. The claimed public interest exception also proceeds from the false premise that activist lawsuits necessarily serve the public interest. Huge swaths of the public support Trump’s policies on foreign aid, immigration and shrinking the federal workforce. To them, preliminary injunctions are thwarting the public interest not serving it. Accordingly, there is no moral justification for an exception to the bond requirement.  

The Trump administration needs to put judges on notice that it will follow the law, but they must too. This means complying with preliminary injunctions only if the judge includes an appropriate bond as required by rule. 

For example, a judge recently ordered the administration to reinstate foreign aid contracts worth at least $24 million to the litigants. But since the injunction covers all foreign aid contracts the total cost could be in the billions. Yet the judge demanded no bond and did not even reference Rule 65(c). 

To aid judges in setting the bond amount, the Justice Department should include in its briefs expert cost estimates from government economists. 

Importantly, plaintiffs who cannot afford to post these bonds can still challenge administration policies. But they will have to actually prove their case instead of scoring a quick pre-trial win that kills the administration’s momentum even if later reversed. 

The pivot began with just two sentences in a Sixth Circuit opinion. The court reasoned that the rule’s directive to set the amount of the bond at ‘such sum as the court deems proper’ allows the trial judge to dispense with the bond altogether. 

Some Republicans may worry that 65(c) could be turned against them by a future Democrat administration facing legal challenges. But as an empirical matter, Republicans have far more to gain since over half of all the nationwide injunctions issued since 1963 were issued against Trump administration policies. And that’s data from 2023 before the avalanche of injunctions that began after Trump’s second inauguration. 

Forcing judges to comply with the plain language of Rule 65(c) is an elegant solution that respects the legal system by restoring the rule of law. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Palantir stock continues slide on Thursday: why these analysts remain bullish
next post
CEOs want workers back in offices—this company is giving workers a $10,000 raise to do it

related articles

Trump denounces court’s ‘political’ tariff decision, calls on...

May 30, 2025

President Trump teases ‘last day, but not really’...

May 30, 2025

State Dept says DOGE’s changes will be permanent...

May 30, 2025

Jill Biden should have to answer for ‘cover...

May 29, 2025

DOGE staffing shakeup as Elon Musk hangs up...

May 29, 2025

Hawley urges DOJ probe of Chinese trucking company

May 29, 2025

Less than half of DOGE-terminated contracts can be...

May 29, 2025

Flashback: Top five wildest moments from Elon Musk’s...

May 29, 2025

Sen Ron Johnson suggests he may not run...

May 29, 2025

Justice Department tells American Bar Association it will...

May 29, 2025
Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News, And Articles.


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Latest News

  • Mars acquires Kellanova for $36 billion, adds Pringles and Cheez-It to its portfolio

    August 14, 2024
  • Russia remains ‘active threat’ in influencing 2024 election, likely to focus on swing states: US officials

    November 5, 2024
  • Progressive Dems rage at Biden for giving Trump the spotlight during final weeks in office

    December 9, 2024
  • Reverend asks Trump to have ‘mercy’ on immigrants, LGBTQ children who ‘fear for their lives’

    January 21, 2025
  • Liberal group indicates they think Harris is pretending to moderate her immigration views before election

    September 18, 2024

Popular Posts

  • 1

    Secret Service admits leaning on ‘state and local partners’ after claim it ignored Trump team’s past requests

    July 21, 2024
  • 2

    Elon and Vivek should tackle US funding for this boondoogle organization and score a multimillion dollar win

    December 4, 2024
  • 3

    Forex Profit Calculator: Maximize Your Trading Potential

    July 10, 2024
  • 4

    Five more House Democrats call on Biden to drop out, third US senator

    July 19, 2024
  • 5

    Biden calls to ‘lower the temperature’ then bashes Trump in NAACP speech

    July 17, 2024

Categories

  • Economy (829)
  • Editor's Pick (4,723)
  • Investing (624)
  • Stock (773)

Latest Posts

  • U.S. markets close sharply lower — but some economists say economy looks stable

    August 6, 2024
  • Asian stocks wobbly on Thursday: Nikkei down 1%, Hang Seng flat

    January 9, 2025
  • Trump FDA pick clears last hurdle after flipping vaccine question on Dem in confirmation hearing

    March 26, 2025

Recent Posts

  • Rubio pushes back against Mahmoud Khalil defenders: ‘Not about free speech’

    March 12, 2025
  • New ‘insulting’ Harris ad target’s Black men’s love lives

    October 20, 2024
  • Pennsylvania man charged with threatening Trump, ICE agents, other officials

    April 11, 2025

Editor’s Pick

  • Poland says Moscow is ‘mocking’ Trump with deadly Ukraine strike

    April 14, 2025
  • Harris says Biden is currently capable of serving as president amid growing concerns over his fitness

    July 23, 2024
  • 5 more House Democrats call on Biden to drop out, third US senator

    July 19, 2024
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Disclaimer: moneyrisetoday.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2025 moneyrisetoday.com | All Rights Reserved

Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock