Trump memo creates confusion over injunction cost rules

A memo from the Trump administration, issued on March 6, has led to widespread confusion and misinformation regarding legal procedures against the federal government. The memo states that parties seeking injunctions must cover costs if the government is found to have been wrongfully restrained. Social media users misinterpreted the memo as a strict measure against what they termed "activist judges" and frivolous lawsuits. Several right-wing accounts falsely claimed that Trump signed an executive order making plaintiffs financially liable when they lose a case against government policies. The memo aims to clarify the enforcement of Civil Procedure Rule 65(c), which requires plaintiffs to post a security bond before federal courts can grant a preliminary injunction. This bond is meant to cover costs if the court later finds the injunction was wrongful. The rule, however, allows federal agencies to seek a bond, but they are exempt from paying one themselves. Critics of the memo argue that it could deter individuals from challenging unconstitutional government actions. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression noted that if courts enforce higher bond amounts consistently, it would limit access to judicial reviews. In response to the memo, the Trump administration claims that injunctions can cost taxpayers significantly. They believe that enforcing the bond requirement would lead to fewer costly injunctions and save taxpayer money. Ultimately, however, the power to set the bond amount rests with the courts, not the executive branch. Legal experts express concern over how this memo might impact ongoing and future legal challenges against the government. They hope that courts will maintain protections for public-interest constitutional litigation, despite the memo's implications.