On March 11, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a memorandum titled "Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)," directing federal agencies to enforce the rule requiring plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders against the government to post security bonds. Chuck Grassley+4The White House+4The White House+4
Key Provisions of the Memorandum:
-
Mandatory Security Bonds: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) mandates that courts require parties seeking injunctions to provide security in an amount deemed proper to cover potential costs and damages if the injunction is later found to have been wrongfully issued. PilieroMazza PLLC+3The White House+3Akin Gump+3
-
Agency Responsibilities: The memorandum instructs the heads of executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the Attorney General, to request that federal courts enforce this rule by requiring plaintiffs to post security equal to the government's potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction. FIRE+5The White House+5Akin Gump+5
-
Scope of Application: This directive applies to all lawsuits filed against the federal government seeking injunctions where agencies can demonstrate expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception. The White House+1The White House+1
Rationale Behind the Memorandum:
The administration cites concerns over activist organizations obtaining sweeping injunctions that undermine the democratic process and impose financial burdens on taxpayers. By enforcing Rule 65(c), the memorandum aims to deter frivolous litigation and protect the government from unwarranted costs. PilieroMazza PLLC+1FIRE+1FIRE+2The White House+2The White House+2
Reactions and Implications:
-
Support: Proponents argue that enforcing Rule 65(c) ensures accountability and discourages meritless lawsuits that can delay government policies and waste public resources. Senate Judiciary
-
Criticism: Opponents contend that strict enforcement of security bonds could make it prohibitively expensive for individuals and organizations to challenge government actions, potentially hindering access to justice and the defense of constitutional rights. FIRE
In summary, the memorandum seeks to reinforce existing legal provisions to ensure that parties seeking injunctions against the federal government are held financially responsible for potential costs and damages, aiming to balance the deterrence of frivolous litigation with the preservation of access to judicial review.JD Supra+4The White House+4Akin Gump+4
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Subject: Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c)
In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even Government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process.
This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail. 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. Moreover, this situation results in the Department of Justice, the Nation’s chief law enforcement agency, dedicating substantial resources to fighting frivolous suits instead of defending public safety.
The effective administration of justice in the Federal courts depends on mechanisms that deter frivolous litigation, protect parties from unwarranted costs, and streamline judicial processes. One key mechanism is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) (Rule 65(c)), which mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order (injunction) provide security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party if the injunction is wrongly issued. Consistent enforcement of this rule is critical to ensuring that taxpayers do not foot the bill for costs or damages caused by wrongly issued preliminary relief by activist judges and to achieving the effective administration of justice.
Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the Federal Government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.
Consistent with applicable law, the heads of executive departments and agencies (agencies), in consultation with the Attorney General, are directed 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 wrongly issued injunction. The scope of this directive covers all lawsuits filed against the Federal Government seeking an injunction where agencies can show expected monetary damages or costs from the requested preliminary relief, unless extraordinary circumstances justify an exception.
In requests for security under Rule 65(c), agencies shall include, among other things, that:
(a) Rule 65(c) mandates the court to require, in all applicable cases, that a movant for an injunction post security in an amount that the court considers proper to cover potential costs and damages to the enjoined or restrained party;
(b) the security amount the agency is requesting is based on a reasoned assessment of the potential harm to the enjoined or restrained party; and
(c) failure of the party that moved for preliminary relief to comply with Rule 65(c) results in denial or dissolution of the requested injunctive relief.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP