<p><!-- BEGIN THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>
<p> <br />
</p>
<div style="position:relative">
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Federal judges are violating the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in their rush to stop a series of executive actions taken by the Trump administration on immigration, government reform, and other issues.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">District court judges are repeatedly failing to abide by Rule 65(c) which requires parties seeking an injunction to post a bond before an injunction can be issued, according to American Path Initiative senior legal fellow Daniel Huff. Huff, who served as a lawyer in the Trump White House and for the House and Senate Judiciary committees, said that without the security of the bond, the judges are ripping off taxpayers whose money is then tied up in legal wrangling.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Last week, two federal judges in separate opinions ordered the Trump administration to reinstate nearly 25,000 probationary employees recently fired from the government.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">“Now, if you have to reinstate 25,000 people, you’re paying them salaries, you’re paying them benefits. The loaded wage there is on average maybe $100,000,” Huff said in an interview with The Daily Wire. “Essentially, what you’re creating here is a requirement that the government spend, on a per month basis, something like $100 to $200 million to reinstate these people. That’s a huge cost.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">“What if it turns out, as it likely will, that the Supreme Court agrees that the government had the authority to fire these probationary workers? How does the taxpayer get our money back?” Huff continued. “The answer is that the people who are seeking the injunction are supposed to post money up front in case it turns out that the government had authority to act.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Rule 65(c) is supposed to be a hurdle to filing “frivolous cases,” according to Huff. The rule compels plaintiffs to put up a security that should scale alongside the size and cost of the complaint.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">“This makes a lot of sense because it filters out bad cases. You’re not going to post that bond as a plaintiff unless you really think you’re going to win,” Huff said. “But it’s not being done here. These judges are not following the law. They are not. They’re issuing injunctions without bonds, and that is a clear and unambiguous violation of the laws that govern them.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Huff said that the abuse of federal rules around bonds has been a pattern across federal judges issuing injunctions against the Trump administration. The injunctions have been sweeping actions that stand to cost taxpayers into the hundreds of millions of dollars.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">The injunctions have roiled critics within the administration and others on the right. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has called for Congress to strip those judges of their jurisdictions. Tech titan Elon Musk has said those judges should be removed from office.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Huff expressed doubt about the viability of those tactics. He said that the makeup of Congress, with Republicans not having enough votes to overcome a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, makes each suggestion practically impossible without Democratic support.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">Along Huff’s line of thinking, the White House issued guidance to federal agencies last week advising them to push federal judges issuing injunctions on Rule 65(c).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-weight:400">“Consistent with applicable law, the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies), in consultation with the Attorney General, are directed to ensure that their respective agencies properly request under Rule 65(c) that Federal district courts require plaintiffs to post security equal to the Federal Government’s potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction,” the </span><a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/ensuring-the-enforcement-of-federal-rule-of-civil-procedure-65c/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="font-weight:400">memo</span></a><span style="font-weight:400"> says. “The scope of this directive covers all lawsuits filed against the Federal Government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception.”</span></p>
</div>
<p><br />
<br /><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judges-are-trampling-court-rules-to-obstruct-trumps-agenda-expert-says">Source link </a></p>
<p><!-- END THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>

Federal Judges Are Trampling Court Rules To Obstruct Trump’s Agenda, Expert Says
