The Trump administration is taking a bold step in response to the wave of emergency lawsuits against it. They are referencing a little-known rule that could require plaintiffs to deposit money at the start of a case. This move is meant to discourage individuals, unions, and advocacy groups from filing lawsuits.
There has been a surge in lawsuits targeting the Trump administration, mainly over immigration policies, budget cuts, government employee firings, and actions by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Currently, nearly 100 such cases are active in federal courts.
A memo from the White House describes these lawsuits as partisan and potentially frivolous, claiming they undermine democracy by exploiting courts with lenient judges.
However, some lawsuits have already succeeded in early court stages. Recently, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration acted unlawfully by freezing federal grants allocated to healthcare programs and infrastructure projects like highways and clean water improvements.
Most of the lawsuits are still ongoing, with some moving forward to gather evidence and likely facing appeals.
The memo points out that taxpayers end up covering the costs of these lawsuits, which can delay government policies that citizens support. It stressed that the Department of Justice is then distracted from its primary role in ensuring public safety.
In the memo, the administration urged agency leaders to use the rule to push for upfront payments from those seeking to block government actions. It stated that parties who seek injunctions against the federal government should be responsible for costs if the government is ultimately found to be correct.
While the memo recognizes the role of judges in approving such payments, it emphasizes the need for accountability for those who misrepresent their cases in court. The rule itself is unusual for a government being sued and has rarely been invoked in this context.
Legal experts indicate that although seldom used, the Trump administration could take advantage of this rule since it exists. One lawyer described this tactic as bold and potentially damaging to traditional legal norms.
The possibility that this payment rule could end up in the Supreme Court exists, especially if it’s used in multiple jurisdictions. Justice Department lawyers would need to convince judges to set these payment amounts, which could range from minimal to substantial, payable upfront.
This rule, part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding emergency motions, allows courts to determine what amount should be required to cover costs in cases where parties are wrongfully restrained.
