Dan Huff:

@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds. 1/

This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda. 2/

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions "ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they’re wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used! 3/

When I was in the White House, in Trump’s first term, I suggested this, but DOJ didn’t make it happen. Imagine if we had applied this to the travel ban – activists would think twice before blocking policies with potentially billions at stake. 4/

The government has expert economists who can easily price out the cost of policies like birthright citizenship or wasteful spending. Price injunction bonds fairly, and frivolous lawsuits become a financial risk, not a free pass. 5/

Without injunction bonds, the American people bear all the costs of activists and judges blocking the agenda they voted for. Why should activists and judges get to overrule the American people with no penalty if they’re wrong? Our system wasn’t meant to work this way. 6/

For national injunctions, we’re talking bonds in the hundreds of millions or even billions. It will become prohibitive unless the activists have a slam dunk case. 7/

If a judge tries to lowball the bond amount, it’s a quick and easy reversal given the unambiguous language in the federal rules. 8/

The best part? This doesn’t block activists from court; it just stops them from using preliminary injunctions to pause government action based on arguments that might not hold up in an appellate court.

https://twitter.com/RealDanHuff/status/1888975398299435477

Hide Comments | Add Comment