President Trump signed an executive order to stop the exploitation of the judicial system by radical leftists and activist judges through frivolous lawsuits.
The Trump administration faces over 100 legal challenges challenging various executive orders and actions the president has signed and taken since he took office on January 10. Only two cases have so far been resolved, underscoring the need to improve the efficiency of the justice system overwhelmed by requests for temporary injunctions. The memo was directed to the heads of executive departments and agencies, directing them to enforce the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) for anyone seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders (TRO).
The order requires department heads to work with the Attorney General in requesting federal courts to demand a security deposit from petitioners as required by FRCP 65(c). The court can use the security deposit to cover its costs or compensate the restrained party if it determines that the injunction was wrongly issued. Additionally, the amount must be sufficient to cover potential costs and damages if the court determines that the activists abused the judicial process to the detriment of the restrained party. Additionally, the enjoined party can argue for a higher bond, while the mover can also request a lower amount.
The executive order lamented that the activists face no consequences when their requests for frivolous injunctions were rejected. This regrettable situation encourages radical left activists to request more temporary injunctions, essentially crippling government policy. Using this tactic, activist organizations and judges insert themselves into the executive policy-making process, undermining the federal government’s democratically-issued mandate.
“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,” the lawsuit stated.
The order highlighted the negative impacts of unnecessary TRO requests. It warned that taxpayers bear the cost of the litigation process and must wait for government services before the issues are resolved. The Department of Justice also dedicates substantial resources to fighting frivolous lawsuits 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.”
Subsequently, the security deposit ensures that taxpayers do not pay the costs of litigation or damages if activist judges wrongly issue preliminary injunctions. The risk of the injunctions being reversed should also deter activists from requesting them and judges from issuing them.
“Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions,” the executive order stated.
Surprisingly, activist judges have repeatedly ignored the rule, which speaks volumes about the judicial process in which some of the temporary injunctions were issued.
Meanwhile, activist judges can set unreasonable low bonds to encourage their leftwing friends to file frivolous requests for temporary injunctions. However, the affected departments can request higher courts to set a reasonable amount, preventing activist judges from abusing the system.
With the threat of baseless requests being rejected outright and additional penalties imposed, enforcement of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) could reduce the number of preliminary injunction requests.
