Americans are certainly aware of the rampant lawfare against President Trump’s attempt to uphold the Constitution and act on his legitimate Article II powers. Democrats' pre-election lawfare failed. They failed to jail him. The civil and criminal court judgements against him are on appeal and will be overturned. Americans recognized Democrat efforts for what they were and gladly elected a “convicted felon,” giving him impressive margins in the Electoral College and popular vote. As a result, Democrats and their fellow cractivists in black robes have gone injunction mad:  

Graphic: X Screenshot

As of early March nationwide injunctions against Trump have reached more than half the injunctions against the government since 1963. More have been lodged since. Of the 127 injunctions since 1963, 63 were issued against Trump in his first term.

There were 32 injunctions issued against the Bush, Obama and Biden administrations collectively since 2001, meaning the first Trump administration was on the receiving end of double the amount of nationwide injunctions than his two predecessors and successor combined, according to the April 2024 edition of the Harvard Law Review. 

Since taking office, Trump initially faced 120 lawsuits, and the number continues to rise. Democrats can’t beat him at the ballot box, so they’re trying to legislate from the bench. In so doing Democrat cracktivist judges are ignoring Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c):

The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant [that is, petitioner] gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

Anyone asking for an injunction or restraining order has to put up enough money to fully reimburse the Government for all costs of implementing the injunction or order in case a higher court strikes down either. This is no legal technicality. It’s a federal rule with the full force of law, and federal judges are ignoring it in their Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS)-fueled mania to get Trump and deny Americans the polices for which they voted.

The ACLU had previously urged the Biden administration to open the border. Now, it’s suing because Trump is deporting illegal aliens.

No security has been required.

These activist groups file lawsuits in specific jurisdictions where they hope favorable judges will grant their sought-after orders.

For instance, when the ACLU sued the administration to prevent the Tren de Aragua members’ removal to El Salvador, it brought the case in Washington, D.C., rather than in Texas, where the gang members in question were detained.

While Boasberg issued an order demanding the return of those flights, the Supreme Court ultimately vacated his order, finding that the D.C. court didn’t have jurisdiction in the case.

Here’s why the ACLU and the rest absolutely don’t want Americans to know about Rule 65(c):

When the ACLU asks Boasberg to issue an order demanding the return of planes carrying suspected Venezuelan gang members, the ACLU would have to fork over enough money to cover the return of those planes—and the detention of the suspects in U.S. facilities in the interim. That money would remain as bond, and the judge would return it to the ACLU if the ACLU ultimately succeeds in the lawsuit.

If, as in this case, the ACLU’s lawsuit fails, the government would receive that money to cover its costs.

Passenger jet flight time, maintenance, fuel, pilot and security pay, and other expenses add up fast. If the ACLU and other anti-American conspirators were required to pay up in advance, that might slow, or potentially shut down, lawfare. DOJ attorneys also ought to demand that the full costs of defending lawfare suits be included.  

Trump knows this. In March, he issued a memo lamenting that when judges issue nationwide injunctions, “Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for government policies they voted for.”

He directed the heads of executive departments “to ensure that their respective agencies properly request under Rule 65(c) that federal district courts require plaintiffs to post security equal to the federal government’s potential costs and damages from a wrongfully issued injunction.”

Apparently, Democrat cracktivists have created an unspoken extralegal exception to block a president’s lawful pursuit of policies for which Americans voted. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg opposed such exceptions.

It’s time for the good guys to use the law to America’s advantage.

On a different subject, if you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.