• 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

TikTok isn’t enough to stop Gen Z from...

August 22, 2025

Trump administration wins Supreme Court fight to slash...

August 22, 2025

Zelenskyy seeks ‘strong reaction’ from US if Putin...

August 22, 2025

Pentagon unveils new medal for troops deployed in...

August 21, 2025

Federal judge rules Trump appointee Alina Habba is...

August 21, 2025

‘Maine’s Mamdani’: Maine GOP chief issues warning about...

August 21, 2025

‘There are 50 swamps’: State Freedom Caucus Network...

August 21, 2025

Trump-aligned legal group probes Biden-era organ transplant program...

August 21, 2025

NATO defense chiefs stress commitment to Ukraine, discuss...

August 21, 2025

Russian drone crashes in Polish field; Warsaw protests...

August 21, 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

  • Consumers choose their favorite retailers ahead of the holidays: Nike, Kohl’s top the list

    October 24, 2024
  • Trapped in Gaza: Residents speak out as Egypt blocks exit, rejects Trump’s relocation plan

    February 25, 2025
  • EXCLUSIVE: White House rolls out implementation of AI for federal employee records

    April 9, 2025
  • Trump support among young Black and Latino men spikes in new poll

    October 24, 2024
  • Biden DOJ weaponized FACE Act to imprison pro-life activists, attorney tells House: ‘Systematic campaign’

    February 26, 2025

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

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

    July 19, 2024
  • 3

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

    December 4, 2024
  • 4

    Forex Profit Calculator: Maximize Your Trading Potential

    July 10, 2024
  • 5

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

    July 17, 2024

Categories

  • Economy (829)
  • Editor's Pick (5,784)
  • Investing (634)
  • Stock (893)

Latest Posts

  • Trump’s first Cabinet picks decidedly not isolationists: Ukraine, Israel breathe a sigh of relief

    November 13, 2024
  • GM reveals redesigned GMC Terrain as brand’s entry-level model

    August 12, 2024
  • Meet the far-left groups funding anti-DOGE protests at GOP offices across the country

    February 25, 2025

Recent Posts

  • Hegseth tears into reporters, alleging they ‘cheer against Trump’ and Iran strikes

    June 26, 2025
  • Top political handicapper reveals prediction for ‘volatile’ 2026 battle for House majority

    February 7, 2025
  • ‘Mofo…in the White House’: Jasmine Crockett attacks Trump, praises Massie in anti-Iran strike rant

    June 23, 2025

Editor’s Pick

  • Pahalgam terror attack: J&K Bank shares fall; analysts warn of short-term volatility if India retaliates

    April 23, 2025
  • Republican AGs double down on Biden administration lawsuits as president prepares to leave office

    January 9, 2025
  • Republican demands info from State Department on delayed Afghanistan flights

    December 17, 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