Court Actions Prompt Trump Administration’s Call for Financial Bonds in Lawsuits
March 13, 2025, 3:38 pm CDT
Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
In a strategic move aimed at managing litigation against the federal administration, President Donald Trump is instructing federal entities to request a financial bond from plaintiffs when they file suit seeking temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.
In a memo dated March 11, Trump remarked on the increasing trend of lawsuits orchestrated by what he described as “activist organizations.” He asserted these groups are leveraging significant financial resources—amounting to millions from donations and even government funding—to secure broad judicial rulings that could interfere with executive policy decisions. He characterized this as an “anti-democratic takeover,” criticizing what he sees as the misuse of the judicial system for fundraising and political posturing.
To combat what his administration views as frivolous litigation, Trump proposes that anyone seeking an injunction against the federal government should comply with Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires presenting a bond that could mitigate the financial impact of potentially wrongful injunctions.
A White House fact sheet highlighted the substantial costs associated with such injunctions, noting they could lead to taxpayer liabilities amounting to millions or billions, particularly when they involve ongoing funding mandates.
Judicial Responses to Bond Requests
Historically, courts have been reluctant to enforce bond requirements in certain cases. For instance, U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson in Maryland has previously denied such requests, emphasizing that courts often waive bond obligations in instances where fundamental constitutional rights are in question.
Similarly, U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan of Washington, D.C., ruled against requiring a bond in a case contesting a funding freeze by the Trump administration, arguing that it would be unreasonable to penalize plaintiffs for harm resulting from the government’s alleged unlawful actions.
In Maryland, another federal judge, Brendan A. Hurson, also declined to enforce bond requirements in a case challenging executive orders perceived as discriminatory against LGBTQ individuals. These judicial outcomes indicate a complex interplay between governmental policy and judicial oversight involving constitutional rights.
