As I wrote for the WSJ, Judge Boasberg’s order is legally invalid. He failed to impose the required bond. Over 30 other injunctions share this flaw." 1/ Rule 65(c) mandates plaintiffs seeking injunctions post a bond to cover defendant costs if the injunction is later voided. It ensures they have skin in the game. 2/

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)

@DOGE, a single district judge has issued a ruling blocking the executive branch from access to Treasury data. There’s a simple fix: DOJ should demand injunction bonds. 1/ This will be a repeat problem for the Trump administration, just like it was in the first term, unless something is done to rein in frivolous injunctions. Activist judges could single-handedly gum up the entire Trump/DOGE agenda. 2/