March 14, 2025
Trump End Run Around Friviloous Lawsuits
Timothy Birdnow
Some time back I posted an essay about how the Trump Administration could end all the nuisance lawsuits against his Administration by simply requiring a security deposit in every case (as is applicable by current law). I do not remember the name of the author nor have the link, alas,but I thought it a good idea at the time - make these endless legal challenges expensive and difficult to file and a lot of them will stop.
Well, by gosh by golly, Mr. Trump gone and done just that.
Now if they want to sue they will have to pony up and file lots of paperwork to boot.
Fromthe Wokespy article:
Under the current rules any Tom, Dick, or Harry can file multiple lawsuits and they all must go to court. In addition, they judge shop so often wind up with temporary victories that slow or stop the policy initiatives of the Administration. But if this rule is implemented (and it will no doubt be challenged and some judge-shopping activist with a gavel will stay the rule) it will make many of these lawsuits go away.
For instance, as of March 6 Trump had already been hit with over a hundred lawsuits, just 17 days after taking office.
The President of El Salvador had a similar problem and he solved it by impeaching judges who were simply obstructing. But that won't work so well in the U.S. with our coequal branches of government.
So this is the next best thing and it should help.
The Democrats and their NGO buddies are pulling out all the stops in using lawfare to circumvent the Will of the People and there must be consequences for that.The Law can indeed be a two-edged sword. I've argued for some time that the only solution to lawfare is mutual assured destruction, and that is where we need to go. I don't like it at all but the aggressors in any type of warfare set the rules of engagement. They wanted to play it this way.
This also illustrates the importance of getting good Constitutional judges on the bench. The Democrats have always understood the importance of the judiciary and sought to infest it with activists. We were content to put in guys who would follow the law, even when the law was completely idiotic. Sadly many of them have wound up carrying the water for Liberals because they do NOT think ideologically. We need more Scalias and Thomases and fewer Amy Coney Barretts or John Roberts.
At any rate this is a welcome development. Trump really seems to know what he is doing this time around!
Some time back I posted an essay about how the Trump Administration could end all the nuisance lawsuits against his Administration by simply requiring a security deposit in every case (as is applicable by current law). I do not remember the name of the author nor have the link, alas,but I thought it a good idea at the time - make these endless legal challenges expensive and difficult to file and a lot of them will stop.
Well, by gosh by golly, Mr. Trump gone and done just that.
Now if they want to sue they will have to pony up and file lots of paperwork to boot.
Fromthe Wokespy article:
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.
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.
Under the current rules any Tom, Dick, or Harry can file multiple lawsuits and they all must go to court. In addition, they judge shop so often wind up with temporary victories that slow or stop the policy initiatives of the Administration. But if this rule is implemented (and it will no doubt be challenged and some judge-shopping activist with a gavel will stay the rule) it will make many of these lawsuits go away.
For instance, as of March 6 Trump had already been hit with over a hundred lawsuits, just 17 days after taking office.
The President of El Salvador had a similar problem and he solved it by impeaching judges who were simply obstructing. But that won't work so well in the U.S. with our coequal branches of government.
So this is the next best thing and it should help.
The Democrats and their NGO buddies are pulling out all the stops in using lawfare to circumvent the Will of the People and there must be consequences for that.The Law can indeed be a two-edged sword. I've argued for some time that the only solution to lawfare is mutual assured destruction, and that is where we need to go. I don't like it at all but the aggressors in any type of warfare set the rules of engagement. They wanted to play it this way.
This also illustrates the importance of getting good Constitutional judges on the bench. The Democrats have always understood the importance of the judiciary and sought to infest it with activists. We were content to put in guys who would follow the law, even when the law was completely idiotic. Sadly many of them have wound up carrying the water for Liberals because they do NOT think ideologically. We need more Scalias and Thomases and fewer Amy Coney Barretts or John Roberts.
At any rate this is a welcome development. Trump really seems to know what he is doing this time around!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:41 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 747 words, total size 5 kb.
25kb generated in CPU 0.0551, elapsed 0.2575 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2518 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2518 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
