The legal system has long been a battleground for political influence. But could Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) be weaponized to silence opposition? President Trump’s recent memorandum aims to ensure that activist groups can no longer manipulate the courts to obstruct governance.
Are Activists Hijacking the Courts?
Rule 65(c) requires that parties seeking a preliminary injunction must post security to cover potential damages if their injunction is later found to be wrongly issued. This rule is meant to protect against frivolous lawsuits, yet it has been inconsistently applied.
Under President Trump’s directive, agencies must now enforce this rule, ensuring that those who attempt to block government policies must bear the financial risk.
How Has Rule 65(c) Been Exploited?
In recent years, activist organizations, often backed by millions of dollars from ideological donors, have used the courts as a tool for political resistance. By filing lawsuits in carefully selected courts, they have successfully obtained nationwide injunctions against policies they oppose, often before they even take effect.
For example, immigration policies under the previous Trump administration faced unprecedented legal obstruction, with judges frequently issuing sweeping injunctions without requiring challengers to post any security. This led to delays, confusion, and significant taxpayer expenses. Similar tactics have been used to block energy projects, voter ID laws, and religious liberty protections.
Without proper enforcement of Rule 65(c), activist lawsuits carry no financial consequences for those bringing them. Even if their case is ultimately dismissed, they face no penalties, while taxpayers foot the bill for the government’s defense.
Why This Matters to You
In recent years, leftist activist groups have flooded the courts with lawsuits aimed at obstructing policies they oppose. These lawsuits often:
-
Exploit forum shopping to find sympathetic judges. (another reference on forum shopping is here)
-
Obtain nationwide injunctions that delay or overturn policies, such as:
We would appreciate your donation.- Judge orders longer-term nationwide block on Trump orders on transgender youth healthcare
- Judge slams Trump while extending block on birthright citizenship order
-
Use litigation as a political fundraising tool, with little financial risk to themselves. For example, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) launched over 400 lawsuits against the Trump administration on issues like immigration, religious liberty, and voting laws. Raising millions of dollars.
This legal warfare is not just about partisan politics—it affects everyday Americans. When a judge blocks border security measures, it impacts national safety. When an energy project is stalled by activist litigation, it affects jobs and fuel prices. When voting laws are put on hold by judicial intervention, it undermines election integrity.
How This Policy Helps the American Citizen
By enforcing Rule 65(c), this new policy aims to:
-
Protect Taxpayers – No more funding endless legal battles against policies enacted by the people’s elected representatives.
-
Prevent Judicial Overreach – Judges will think twice before granting sweeping injunctions without accountability.
-
Stop Legal Warfare – Activist groups must now face financial consequences for frivolous lawsuits.
-
Ensure Fairness – Lawsuits should be based on merit, not politics.
-
Restore Order to Governance – Executive agencies will be able to implement policies without years of legal obstruction.
A Double-Edged Sword: Could Rule 65(c) Be Used Against Conservatives?
While this memorandum is a victory against judicial activism today, the next administration could turn it into a weapon of its own. How? By either abolishing Rule 65(c) enforcement to reopen the floodgates for activist lawsuits or by selectively applying it against conservative legal challenges.
-
A future progressive administration could ignore Rule 65(c) entirely, allowing leftist groups to once again file lawsuits without financial risk.
-
Alternatively, if enforced selectively, Rule 65(c) could target conservative groups challenging unconstitutional mandates on issues like religious liberty, gun rights, and free speech.
This reality underscores the importance of continued civic engagement. Americans cannot assume that one legal victory guarantees lasting protection against activist interference in governance.
A Step Toward Restoring Constitutional Order
For too long, judicial activism has undermined executive authority. This memorandum is a bold step toward rebalancing the system, ensuring that governance is decided by elected officials—not activist judges and special interest groups.
The Constitution envisions a government where laws are enacted by Congress and executed by the President. It does not grant unelected judges the power to block policies indefinitely simply because a well-funded activist group objects to them. Rule 65(c) is a long-standing legal principle, but its enforcement has been neglected. President Trump’s memorandum corrects this oversight and re-establishes fairness in legal proceedings.
What’s Next?
Will the courts comply with this directive, or will activist judges resist? Should ordinary Americans worry about how this rule might be applied to future lawsuits? The battle for judicial fairness is far from over.
While this policy primarily targets progressive legal activism, it could also impact future conservative legal challenges. This raises an important question: Will future administrations enforce this rule fairly, or will it be used selectively?
For now, one thing is clear—President Trump’s directive on Rule 65(c) is a game-changer in the legal fight over government policy. By requiring activist litigants to bear the financial risk of their lawsuits, the White House is signaling that the era of frivolous, consequence-free injunctions is over.
Why You Must Stay Engaged
The battle for judicial fairness does not end here. Americans must remain vigilant to ensure that Rule 65(c) is applied fairly and consistently—not weaponized by future administrations to silence political opposition.
Stay informed, stay engaged, and demand that justice works for the people—not against them.
