New Directive from the White House

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum that instructs heads of federal agencies to seek financial guarantees from groups filing lawsuits against the government. This move is designed to make these “activist” groups financially responsible in instances where a federal court might find an injunction unnecessary.

Context of Ongoing Legal Battles

This directive comes at a critical time, as the administration grapples with over 90 lawsuits. These suits stem from the executive orders, proclamations, and memos issued since January 20, which have been contested by a combination of legal advocacy groups, labor organizations, and various state and local entities.

Key Details of the Memo

The memo specifically directs federal agencies to engage with Attorney General Pam Bondi in requesting federal courts to comply with a rule that demands financial guarantees from plaintiffs seeking injunctions. This requirement falls under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which allows the Department of Justice to request that judges impose such guarantees. The intent is to ensure these guarantees reflect the potential costs and damages the federal government could face from an incorrectly issued preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.

Financial Accountability for Legal Challenges

According to a White House fact sheet, the directive applies to all lawsuits that seek preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders “where the government can demonstrate monetary harm from the requested relief.” This arrangement emphasizes that federal agencies must provide reasonable assessments of potential harm when justifying the required security amounts.

As reasserted by the White House: “Agencies must justify security amounts based on reasoned assessments of harm, ensuring courts deny or dissolve injunctions if plaintiffs fail to pay up, absent good cause.” The administration believes this approach will hinder what they term the actions of “activist judges” and enhance accountability for litigating groups.

Addressing “Activist Judges”

The memo articulates the administration’s frustration with what it perceives as overreach by “unelected district judges,” claiming these judicial figures have issued broad injunctions that extend beyond their authority. The White House asserts that such legal maneuvers insert judges into policymaking processes and disrupt policies that align with the will of the electorate.

Implications for Ongoing Legal Proceedings

Many of the legal challenges against the Trump administration are advancing through the judicial system, with several cases already reaching the Supreme Court. Notably, the Supreme Court recently delivered a decisive 5-4 ruling that upheld a district judge’s order mandating the administration to pay nearly billion in foreign aid funding.

The ruling indicates a return to the lower courts to finalize payment plans for USAID contracts, following the expiration of a payment deadline set by the district court. The Supreme Court noted: “Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.” This ruling highlights the ongoing complexities and challenges the Trump administration faces in navigating both domestic and international obligations.