Federal judges are violating court rules requiring financial bonds for injunctions, costing taxpayers millions while obstructing Trump administration policies.
Quick Takes
- Judges repeatedly issue injunctions against Trump administration policies without enforcing Rule 65(c) bond requirements.
- Two federal judges ordered reinstatement of 25,000 probationary employees, potentially costing taxpayers $100-$200 million monthly.
- The White House has issued guidance to federal agencies to push for Rule 65(c) enforcement in courts.
- Legal experts warn this pattern could create a constitutional crisis by undermining judicial checks and balances.
- Critics argue taxpayers cannot recover money spent if courts later rule the government acted lawfully.
Judges Bypassing Bond Requirements
Federal judges are increasingly ignoring Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when issuing injunctions against Trump administration policies, according to legal experts. This rule explicitly requires plaintiffs seeking injunctions to post a bond before courts can issue such orders. The bond requirement serves as a financial safeguard that protects defendants – in this case, the federal government – from costs and damages incurred if the court ultimately determines the injunction was wrongfully imposed. By not enforcing this requirement, judges are effectively allowing plaintiffs to obstruct executive actions without any financial risk to themselves.
Daniel Huff, a senior legal fellow, has raised significant concerns about this practice, arguing it places an enormous financial burden on American taxpayers. When judges order the government to maintain or reinstate programs or employees that the administration intended to terminate, those costs don’t simply disappear – they’re shifted to taxpayers who must continue funding these disputed operations while legal battles play out, often for months or years. This pattern represents a troubling departure from established procedural safeguards designed to prevent frivolous injunctions.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), judges can issue injunctions “ONLY IF” the suing party posts a bond to cover potential damages if they're wrong. But guess what? This rule is hardly used! 3/
— Dan Huff (@RealDanHuff) February 10, 2025
The Staggering Costs to Taxpayers
The financial implications of these judicial decisions are substantial. In one notable example, two federal judges ordered the reinstatement of approximately 25,000 probationary federal employees, a move that carries enormous costs. According to Huff’s analysis, this single judicial action could cost American taxpayers between $100 and $200 million per month in salaries and benefits. This represents just one instance of judges issuing injunctions without requiring plaintiffs to post bonds that would help cover these expenses if the government ultimately prevails in court. “Now, if you have to reinstate 25,000 people, you’re paying them salaries, you’re paying them benefits. The loaded wage there is on average maybe $100,000. Essentially, what you’re creating here is a requirement that the government spend, on a per month basis, something like $100 to $200 million to reinstate these people. That’s a huge cost,” explains Huff.
The problem extends beyond just the immediate financial burden. If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the government did indeed have the authority to terminate these employees or programs, there is no mechanism to recover the millions or potentially billions spent during the injunction period. Huff pointedly asks, “What if it turns out, as it likely will, that the Supreme Court agrees that the government had the authority to fire these probationary workers? How does the taxpayer get our money back?” The answer, unfortunately, is that they don’t.
White House Response and Broader Implications
In response to these judicial actions, the White House has issued guidance directing federal agencies to actively push for the enforcement of Rule 65(c) in federal courts. This move signals the administration’s determination to challenge what it views as judicial overreach and protect taxpayer resources. The enforcement of bond requirements would ensure that plaintiffs have financial skin in the game before courts halt executive actions, potentially reducing frivolous litigation designed merely to obstruct presidential policies.
The situation has sparked significant criticism from various quarters. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Elon Musk, and other prominent figures have called for action against judges who disregard procedural requirements. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has accused some courts of abusing the rule of law and thwarting the will of voters. Meanwhile, legal experts have warned that the ongoing tension between the executive branch and judiciary could potentially escalate into a constitutional crisis if the administration refuses to comply with court orders it deems improper or excessive.
Historical Context and Future Concerns
During his first term, President Trump generally complied with judicial rulings even while criticizing them, such as when he revised his travel restrictions to meet Supreme Court requirements. However, the current administration appears to be taking a more confrontational stance regarding judicial oversight of executive power. Vice President J.D. Vance and others have questioned whether judges should have such extensive control over presidential actions, suggesting potential reforms to limit judicial review may be forthcoming.
Many legal experts point out that judges have limited power to enforce compliance with their orders, potentially leading to contempt charges or involvement of the U.S. Marshals Service in extreme cases. With multiple Trump administration initiatives facing legal challenges – including efforts to reorganize federal agencies and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, the financial stakes of these procedural disputes continue to grow. The proper enforcement of Rule 65(c) remains at the center of this conflict, with taxpayer resources hanging in the balance.
Sources:
Federal Judges Are Trampling Court Rules To Obstruct Trump’s Agenda, Expert Says
WH to Supreme Court: Rein in Judges Blocking Trump’s Agenda
Trump and allies ramp up attacks on judges, courts as agenda hits legal roadblocks
