Trump Signs Executive Order Cracking Down on Radical Activist Judges and Farleft Groups Abusing Courts — Demands to Pay Court Costs to Stop ‘Frivolous’ Injunctions Costing Taxpayers Millions

President Donald Trump signed a groundbreaking executive order on Tuesday designed to clamp down on the growing abuse of America’s judicial system by radical activist judges and far-left organizations.

The order specifically targets the reckless pursuit of frivolous injunctions, which have repeatedly cost taxpayers millions and disrupted republican governance.

President Donald Trump has been bombarded with a staggering 119 legal challenges in just two months since his January 20 inauguration.

These cases, driven by radical activist judges, threaten to paralyze the administration before it can fully enact the mandate delivered by voters in the 2024 election. So far, only two of these cases have been resolved.

The memorandum, addressed directly to the heads of executive departments and agencies, instructs them to firmly enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which says that anyone who asks a court for an injunction (a temporary order stopping a government action) must first deposit money or a bond with the court.

This money is intended to cover potential harm or costs to the government if the court later decides that the injunction was improperly issued.

Trump argues that activist organizations have been abusing the courts, frequently filing weak or meritless lawsuits against the government to slow down or block policies they disagree with, often choosing sympathetic judges to hear their cases.

These groups do not typically face consequences when their lawsuits fail. Instead, taxpayers pay the cost when government policies are halted by these injunctions.

The memo tells federal agencies to make sure that whenever someone sues the government for an injunction, the agency should request that the plaintiff (the person or organization suing) provides enough money upfront to cover possible costs and damages the government might suffer if the injunction turns out to be unjustified.

Agencies must work with the Attorney General to decide how much money to ask for, and they must clearly justify that amount to the court.

The goal is to prevent misuse of the court system by ensuring groups think carefully before filing lawsuits and asking for injunctions, because they will have to financially cover the government’s potential losses if they’re wrong.

According to the executive order:

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.

Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for Government policies they voted for.

Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the Nation’s chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits 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.

One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued.

Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.

Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.  Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.

In requests for security under Rule 65(c), agencies shall include, among other things, that:

(a)  Rule 65(c) mandates the court to require, in all applicable cases, that a movant for an injunction post security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party;

(b)  the security amount the agency is requesting is based on a reasoned assessment of the potential harm to the enjoined or restrained party; and

(c)  failure of the party that moved for preliminary relief to comply with Rule 65(c) results in denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order Cracking Down on Radical Activist Judges and Farleft Groups Abusing Courts — Demands to Pay Court Costs to Stop ‘Frivolous’ Injunctions Costing Taxpayers Millions appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.