Consider this: Over half of all nationwide injunctions since 1963 targeted Trump admin policies. But the judges issuing them? They’re ignoring an explicit legal rule. (1/9)
Rule 65(c) mandates a bond for preliminary injunctions—cash to cover damages if plaintiffs lose. It’s not optional. For 40 years, courts enforced it. Then, a shift. (2/9)
As litigation became a policy tool for activists, bonds—often in the millions—posed a hurdle. So activists and their allies on the bench started ignoring the rule, falsely asserting that bond are discretionary. (3/9)
The rule’s language and history are unambiguous: Bonds are required. Similar claims about a ‘public interest’ exception also don’t hold up. At best, they amount to a policy argument, not a legal one. (4/9)
Moreover, these activists have no moral claim to serving the public interest. Millions support Trump’s policies on foreign aid, immigration etc. For them, halting those reforms are defying the public interest, not defending it. (5/9)
There is a simple solution. Comply with injunctions only when bonds are posted, as Rule 65(c) demands. It’s a stance rooted in law, not defiance. (6/9)
Take the USAID case. A judge reinstated at least $24M in foreign aid contracts, the total bill could be in the billions. Yet the judge demanded no bond and did not even reference Rule 65(c). The Admin should not comply until bond is required. (7/9)
Forcing judges to comply with the plain language of Rule 65(c) is an elegant solution that respects the legal system by restoring the rule of law. (8/9)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
