Courts

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. 

Voters in Alameda County, California, have recalled District Attorney Pamela Price, marking the first time the county has removed an elected DA from office.

Price, who was backed by George Soros and known for her “criminal justice reform” policies, was ousted by a significant margin in one of California’s most left-leaning areas, which includes the city of Oakland.

Early Wednesday morning, Alameda County released unofficial results showing that 64.8% of voters supported recalling Price, while 35.2% voted to keep her.

Although official results may take a few days to finalize, the recall’s outcome underscores growing dissatisfaction with progressive criminal justice policies, even in traditionally liberal communities.

According to Mercury News, Price’s recall represents a notable shift in attitudes toward criminal justice reform in California.

Price, who had been in office for less than two years of her six-year term, had faced mounting criticism over policies that many residents saw as too lenient on crime.

Her approach included measures aimed at reducing incarceration and supporting alternatives to prosecution for certain offenses, but critics argued that these policies contributed to rising crime in Oakland and other parts of Alameda County.

Price was one of several progressive prosecutors across the country whose campaigns received financial backing from billionaire George Soros.

Soros has supported numerous candidates promoting criminal justice reform, particularly those who ran on platforms aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement.

However, in California, backlash against these policies has become increasingly visible.

Last year, voters in San Francisco recalled DA Chesa Boudin, another Soros-backed prosecutor, after widespread complaints about rising crime and public safety issues.

On Tuesday, Soros-backed Los Angeles County DA George Gascón, who also implemented similar policies, lost his re-election bid by a wide margin.

During her tenure, Price faced a series of controversies that fueled public discontent.

Notably, her laptop was stolen from her car in Oakland—a city grappling with escalating crime and the effects of “defund the police” policies that led to reduced law enforcement resources.

Price was also accused of nepotism after hiring her boyfriend, despite concerns raised about his background.

Beyond local recalls, California voters have taken other actions to address crime and safety concerns.

In recent state elections, a large majority voted in favor of Proposition 36, a measure designed to counteract some of the unintended consequences of Proposition 47, which passed in 2014.

Proposition 47 reduced penalties for certain theft and drug offenses, but critics say it has contributed to an increase in retail theft, looting, and other crimes.

Proposition 36 aims to reintroduce stricter measures, signaling a statewide shift toward policies that prioritize public safety over leniency.

The recall effort against Price gained momentum as Oakland residents and business owners voiced frustration with policies they believed were inadequate for dealing with the city’s crime issues.

Under Price’s leadership, Oakland had experienced a surge in crime, prompting criticism from citizens who felt that public safety was not being adequately addressed.

The recall’s success could influence similar efforts in other regions, as voters reconsider the impact of progressive criminal justice policies.

Alameda County’s decision to recall Price may have broader implications for the future of progressive criminal justice reforms in California and across the U.S. Price’s removal, along with the recent recalls and defeats of other high-profile reformist prosecutors, highlights a potential shift in public opinion.

As California’s bluest areas push back against progressive policies perceived as ineffective, the state may see a return to more traditional approaches to criminal justice in an effort to curb crime and enhance public safety.

Read More at LifeZette