President Donald Trump has issued a memorandum that seeks to make plaintiffs pay for the costs incurred by injunctions that are granted as part of lawsuits against the administration and are overturned upon appeal.
Trump’s memo, issued on March 6, comes amid a wave of at least 80 lawsuits against his administration and judges across the country blocking some of his policies.
“In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy-making process and therefore undermining the democratic process,” Trump’s order read.
He added that taxpayers are forced to cover the costs of these organizations’ “antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined,” and “must needlessly wait for government policies they voted for.”
More specifically, his order directs agencies to request federal courts require that plaintiffs seeking injunctions against the government post security amounts equal to the government’s potential costs of enforcing an injunction.
He invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which states that courts “may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”
His order came a day after the Supreme Court refused to halt a judge’s order requiring that Trump disburse billions in foreign assistance funds.
Justice Samuel Alito and three other justices issued a dissenting opinion questioning the majority decision.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out [and probably lose forever] 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” they wrote.
“The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise.” He added that he was “stunned” by the court’s decision.
