March 11, 2025 Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) - Executive Order
- Fact Seeker
- Mar 15
- 2 min read
This memorandum directs executive departments and agencies to ensure consistent enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which requires parties seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders (TROs) against the federal government to provide financial security to cover potential costs and damages if the injunction is later found to be wrongly issued.
The memorandum highlights concerns that certain activist organizations, funded by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes government grants, have allegedly used the injunction process to obstruct government policies, delaying actions supported by voters and increasing taxpayer costs. It asserts that some organizations engage in "forum shopping"—selecting favorable courts to bring cases with little legal merit—and that these cases drain Department of Justice resources that could be used for public safety.
Key Directives
Requiring Financial Security for Injunctions
Federal agencies must request courts to enforce Rule 65(c) by requiring plaintiffs to post security covering potential government costs and damages from wrongly issued injunctions.
This applies to all lawsuits against the federal government where financial harm from a wrongly issued injunction can be demonstrated, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Guidelines for Agencies in Court Filings
Agencies must argue that Rule 65(c) mandates courts to require security deposits in applicable cases.
The requested security amount should be based on a reasoned assessment of potential financial harm to the government.
If the plaintiff fails to comply with Rule 65(c), the agency should request that the court deny or dissolve the injunction.
Justification
The memorandum argues that enforcing Rule 65(c) protects taxpayers by ensuring they do not bear the financial burden of legal challenges that later prove unfounded.
It claims that misuse of injunctions has allowed certain organizations to interfere with executive decision-making, disrupting policies and delaying government actions.
The order asserts that ensuring accountability for injunction-seekers will deter frivolous lawsuits and streamline the judicial process.
General Provisions
The memorandum does not override any existing legal authorities.
It does not create new legal rights or benefits for any party.
Writer's Note: Summary made with the use of AI tools for editing and quick processing, facts checked against the order before publishing.
Opmerkingen