Questions Arise About Federal Judiciary’s Approach to Injunctions in Trump Cases

Federal judges may be violating procedural rules that protect taxpayers when issuing injunctions against Trump administration actions, potentially costing Americans millions of dollars without accountability.

Key Takeaways

Judges are allegedly violating Rule 65(c) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by not requiring plaintiffs to post bonds before issuing injunctions against Trump administration actions.
The financial burden falls on taxpayers when judges order the government to take costly actions, such as reinstating 25,000 probationary employees at a potential cost of $100-200 million monthly.
The White House has directed federal agencies to push for Rule 65(c) enforcement in courts to protect taxpayer interests.
Legal experts warn that ongoing tensions between the judiciary and executive branch could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis.
Rule 65(c) is designed to filter out frivolous cases by requiring plaintiffs to have financial skin in the game.

The Rule 65(c) Controversy

A growing concern is emerging over federal judges issuing injunctions against Trump administration actions without enforcing a critical procedural safeguard. Legal expert Daniel Huff has highlighted that judges are allegedly bypassing Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires plaintiffs to post a bond before an injunction can be issued. This rule exists specifically to protect defendants, including the federal government, from financial harm should the injunction later be found improper. The apparent disregard for this procedural requirement has raised questions about judicial overreach and taxpayer protection.

Rule 65(c) serves as a critical filter for frivolous litigation by requiring plaintiffs to have financial skin in the game. The size of the bond should scale with the potential costs imposed by the injunction, creating a system where plaintiffs must seriously evaluate their likelihood of success before proceeding. Without enforcement of this rule, there’s little to deter plaintiffs from seeking broad injunctions against government policies, regardless of their case’s merits, as they bear none of the financial risk.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they're wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used! 3/

— Dan Huff (@RealDanHuff) February 10, 2025

Taxpayer Burden and Government Action

The financial implications of judges bypassing Rule 65(c) are substantial. In one case highlighted by Huff, two federal judges ordered the Trump administration to reinstate approximately 25,000 probationary federal employees, creating a significant financial burden for taxpayers. The costs associated with this reinstatement are estimated to be staggering, with potential long-term consequences if the government ultimately prevails in the underlying legal dispute but cannot recover the funds already spent. “Now, if you have to reinstate 25,000 people, you’re paying them salaries, you’re paying them benefits. The loaded wage there is on average maybe $100,000. Essentially, what you’re creating here is a requirement that the government spend, on a per month basis, something like $100 to $200 million to reinstate these people. That’s a huge cost.” said Huff.

Recognizing these challenges, the White House has issued guidance to federal agencies, instructing them to push for enforcement of Rule 65(c) in federal courts. This strategic move aims to ensure that government resources are protected and that plaintiffs seeking to halt administrative actions bear appropriate financial responsibility. The administration’s directive reflects a broader concern about the impact of judicial decisions on the executive branch’s ability to implement its agenda.

Escalating Tensions Between Branches

The controversy over Rule 65(c) occurs against a backdrop of increased friction between the Trump administration and the judiciary. President Trump and his allies, including Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk, have publicly criticized judges and court rulings that have impeded administration initiatives. These criticisms have intensified as various legal challenges have emerged against the administration’s efforts to overhaul government agencies and implement policy changes.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has characterized some court actions as abuses of the rule of law that thwart the will of American voters. Meanwhile, legal scholars have expressed concern that continued tensions could escalate into a constitutional crisis if the administration were to refuse compliance with court orders. The judiciary’s enforcement mechanisms are limited, potentially placing significant strain on the traditional system of checks and balances that has defined American governance.

Precedent and Potential Outcomes

During his first term, President Trump generally complied with judicial rulings, including revising his administration’s travel restrictions to meet Supreme Court requirements. However, the current rhetoric suggests a more confrontational approach may be developing. Critics of the judiciary point to Rule 65(c) as an example of courts selectively applying procedural rules, while supporters of judicial review emphasize the courts’ traditional role in checking executive power.

As legal challenges continue to mount against various administration initiatives, including Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and other proposed government reforms, the enforcement of procedural rules like Rule 65(c) will likely remain a contentious issue. The outcome of this dispute could significantly influence the relationship between the executive and judicial branches for years to come, with important implications for governmental operations and taxpayer protection.