1. Home
2. Daily News
3. ‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’…

Law Firms

‘Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era?’ Judges consider injunction bids by firms targeted in Trump orders

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 24, 2025, 10:57 am CDT

Two federal judges sharply questioned a government lawyer Wednesday as they considered bids by Perkins Coie and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to permanently enjoin executive orders that target them and their clients.

“Is this a throwback to the McCarthy era, the Red Scare era?” asked U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., in the Perkins Coie case. Howell was questioning Department of Justice lawyer Richard Lawson, according to Law360.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Law360, include the New York Times, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and Law.com (here and here).

Lawson argued for the government in the cases before Howell and U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, both of whom are located in the District of Columbia.

Perkins Coie and WilmerHale are among four law firms that filed lawsuits to challenge the executive orders that typically seek the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances; restrict their access to government buildings; and call for termination of government contracts for which the firms were hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Targeted firms have represented clients and worked on causes opposed by President Donald Trump.

Howell asked the “throwback” question after noting a declaration from a former Department of Defense official who oversaw security clearances. He said a blanket suspension of clearances, as called for in the executive orders, “harkens back to the repudiated and discredited programs,” including the Red Scare.

Arguing for Perkins Coie, Dane H. Butswinkas, a partner at Williams & Connolly, said Trump’s actions stem from “the playbook of authoritarianism,” according to Bloomberg Law.

“This is exactly the kind of conduct the Constitution forbids,” Butswinkas said.

Butswinkas said the executive orders targeted lawyers who are no longer with the firms, according to Law.com.

“It sounds more like national insecurity than national security,” he said.

In the hearing before Leon, Lawson said the orders are a valid exercise of executive function rather than punishments for First Amendment activities.

Leon questioned that assertion, Law360 reports.

“It’s pretty clear it’s retaliation,” Leon said, “at least to this court.”

Arguing for WilmerHale, Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy said the executive orders “are a direct and lethal threat to an independent bar,” according to Law360.

“The signal it sends to the whole bar is, ‘Watch out,’” Clement said.

Nine firms have reached deals with Trump to avoid executive orders. The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

Above the Law has created a list of firm actions in response to the Trump administration in its “BigLaw Spine Index.”

See also:

Revoking security clearances includes due process, which is not being followed, says whistleblower lawyer

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook…

Prosecutors

Acting US attorney once orchestrated Facebook posts criticizing judge presiding in his case, report says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 28, 2025, 11:12 am CDT

The acting U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., formerly helped ghostwrite posts criticizing a judge presiding in a civil case in which he was the defendant, according to lawsuit documents cited by ProPublica.

U.S. attorney nominee Edward R. Martin Jr. helped his associate, Priscilla Gray, write the posts that began in 2016 after the Illinois judge “dealt Martin a major setback in the case,” according to the report by ProPublica, noted by Bloomberg Law’s Wake Up Call. Martin is filling the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia position on an acting basis.

Gray’s posts on the judge’s Facebook page called the judge a “politician” with the “lowest rating for a judge in Illinois.”

Martin had urged Gray to call the judge’s actions “unfair and rigged over and over,” according to ProPublica. He also urged Gray to privately message the judge, the article reports.

The judge was presiding in a case seeking to oust Martin from association with a grassroots group that he once headed, the Eagle Forum. The plaintiff was Anne Schlafly Cori, an Eagle Forum board member who was the daughter of the group’s founder, Phyllis Schlafly.

The truth about Martin’s involvement in the criticism “emerged as Cori’s lawyers gathered evidence for her lawsuit,” according to ProPublica.

President Donald Trump has nominated Martin, who has no prosecution experience, to remain in the U.S. attorney position. Martin did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment. Gray also declined to comment to the publication.

Andy Schlafly, a former Eagle Forum board member who supported Martin, told ProPublica that Gray “speaks for herself” and had every right to express her outrage. He also said no court has ever sanctioned Martin for his “First Amendment advocacy.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Executive orders against firms threaten rule…

Law Firms

Executive orders against firms threaten rule of law, Susman Godfrey says in suit against Trump administration

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 14, 2025, 12:39 pm CDT

Updated: Susman Godfrey has alleged in a lawsuit filed Friday that President Donald Trump’s campaign of executive orders targeting the law firm and other well-known firms is an unconstitutional threat to the rule of law.

“The president is abusing the powers of his office to wield the might of the executive branch in retaliation against organizations and people that he dislikes. Nothing in our Constitution or laws grants a president such power,” according to the April 11 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “If a president can with impunity seek to destroy a law firm because of the clients it represents, then the rule of law itself is in grave danger.”

If the executive orders against Susman Godfrey and other firms are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they retaliate against different perceived enemies, the suit says.

“Put simply, this could be any of us,” the suit says.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law are among the publications with coverage.

U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C., granted a temporary restraining order Tuesday to block sections of the executive order denying access to government property and calling for an end to government contracts in which the firm provides services.

“The executive order is based on a personal vendetta against a particular firm,” AliKhan said during the hearing, according to a report by Reuters. “And, frankly, I think the framers of our Constitution would view it as a shocking abuse of power.”

Publications covering the ruling, in addition to Reuters, include Law.com and Law360.

Three other firms that sued over executive orders have also obtained TROs.

Susman Godfrey, a firm with 235 attorneys, describes itself as “the nation’s foremost trial firm” in the suit, Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President. Susman Godfrey is represented in the suit by a legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who was the U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration and also was a former Jenner & Block partner.

The April 9 executive order targeting Susman Godfrey alleged that the firm “spearheads efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections.” Susman Godfrey is one of the firms that filed a defamation suit against Fox News for false claims that voting machines made by Dominion Voting Systems were used to help former President Joe Biden win the 2020 election. The case settled for $787.5 million.

The executive order against Susman Godfrey seeks the suspension of security clearances issued to any of the firm’s lawyers; restricts access to government buildings for firm employees; bans the government from providing resources to Susman Godfrey, including compartmentalized information facilities; bans government hiring of Susman Godfrey employees; and calls for termination of government contracts for which Susman Godfrey has been hired to provide services, including clients’ government contracts.

Trump’s executive order “effectively seeks to create a new condition of government contracting—that contractors not work with Susman Godfrey,” the suit says.

That is an unconstitutional condition that interferes with a First Amendment right to associate and a due process right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, according to the suit, which also cites other alleged constitutional violations.

Susman Godfrey is the fourth firm to sue over executive orders. The others are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie.

Firms that have reached agreements with Trump to avoid executive orders are Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Milbank; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Kirkland & Ellis; A&O Shearman; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Latham & Watkins; and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.

The deals typically provide that the firms will provide pro bono services for projects mutually supported by the firms and Trump. Amounts of pro bono pledged range from $40 million to $125 million.

See also:

Which firms, legal groups, law profs signed briefs supporting Perkins Coie in challenge to punitive Trump order?

Updated April 16 at 8:45 a.m. to include information on the temporary restraining order.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge finds probable cause to hold US in…

Constitutional Law

Judge finds probable cause to hold US in contempt; is Trump administration ‘at the cusp of outright defiance’?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 16, 2025, 3:53 pm CDT

A federal judge who banned the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan immigrants from the United States ruled Wednesday that there is probable cause to find the government in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying his directive.

The federal government transferred the deportees to a prison in El Salvador in Central America hours after he issued an injunction, the judge said, and officials’ boasts implied that it was done “deliberately and gleefully.”

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia said he would give the Trump administration a chance to purge itself of contempt, and if the government doesn’t act, he would identify the people responsible for noncompliance. The final step would be a contempt prosecution, possibly by an appointed prosecutor.

CNN, the Washington Post, Law360 and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage of Boasberg’s April 16 order.

Boasberg ruled a day after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland ordered the administration to provide answers about why it apparently failed to “facilitate” the release of an immigrant mistakenly sent to the El Salvadoran prison, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 10.

The government’s clashes with Boasberg and Xinis have led to the government’s arrival “at the cusp of outright defiance,” the New York Times reports in a separate article. Other examples of the administration’s defiant stance include its freezing of funds that have been ordered released and its refusal to allow the Associated Press to participate in the press pool, despite a federal judge’s decision requiring access.

Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School, told Courthouse News Service that the executive branch “is intent on pushing the bounds of its authority as far as possible and now beyond the breaking point of our constitutional democracy.”

In the case before Xinis, the government has argued that facilitating the return of the immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, means only that it must “remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

The government argument “does not pass the laugh test,” Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law SchooL, told the New York Times.

The New York Times concludes that defiance may not be in the form of an outright refusal to follow a judge’s order.

“It may be an appearance by a hapless lawyer who has or claims to have no information. Or it may be a legal argument so outlandish as to amount to insolence,” the article says.

Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings, even though the Supreme Court ruled April 7 that the case had been filed in the wrong venue. The Supreme Court said the immigrants could only challenge their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 through a habeas action, which must be brought in the district in which they are confined.

Boasberg said the Supreme Court decision, which lifted his temporary restraining order preventing the deportations, “does not excuse the government’s violation.”

Every judicial order must be obeyed until it is reversed, he said.

“If a party chooses to disobey the order—rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process—such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg said the government could purge itself of contempt by giving the deportees sent to El Salvador a chance to challenge their removal in a habeas proceeding by asserting custody over them. The government would not have to release people or bring them back to assert custody.

If the government does not purge itself of contempt, Boasberg will require declarations and possibly testimony, he said. The next step, if needed, would be to seek a contempt prosecution by the Department of Justice, and, if that is declined, to appoint another prosecutor.

The Trump administration planned to seek “immediate appellate relief” from Boasberg’s ruling, according to the New York Times.

The case is J.G.G. v. Trump.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Law students sue EEOC over investigative…

Law Students

Law students sue EEOC over investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 17, 2025, 9:43 am CDT

Three law students have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to withdraw investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms and to return and delete information that it gathered from them.

The April 15 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says the EEOC acted beyond its authority when it demanded that law firms turn over sensitive personal information about their applicants and employees dating back six to 10 years.

The law students, who filed the suit using pseudonyms, are represented by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal services organization, according to a April 15 press release.

Law.com and Reuters have coverage.

Reuters called the suit “the latest pushback against President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in major law firms and eradicate workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.”

The plaintiffs are three law students who either applied to or worked at one of more of the 20 targeted firms. Information sought from the firms includes “sensitive personal information about plaintiffs and their employment history: their name, sex, race, contact information, academic performance and compensation,” the suit says.

Now that the EEOC and Andrea Lucas, the acting EEOC chair, have demanded the information, the suit says, the plaintiffs “are deeply worried that their data will be divulged, and that they may be targeted as a result.”

The law creating the EEOC provides that an investigation can be conducted only after a specific charge has been filed, the suit says. The law also “imposed strict confidentiality requirements on those charges and investigations, as well as on efforts to obtain voluntary compliance,” according to the suit.

Those requirements have not been met, according to the allegations.

The EEOC sought the information in a March 17 letter and announced the action in a press release. The targeted firms are: Perkins Coie; Cooley; Reed Smith; A&O Shearman; Debevoise & Plimpton; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Goodwin Procter; Hogan Lovells; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; McDermott Will & Emery; Milbank; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morrison & Foerster; Ropes & Gray; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; White & Case; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Six of the targeted firms have since reached deals with Trump to avoid becoming a target of punitive executive orders that would withdraw their lawyers’ security clearances and could imperil their representation of government contractors.

According to Law.com, those six firms are: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Milbank and Skadden. It’s unclear whether agreements reached with Skadden and Milbank resolve the EEOC request. The other four firms agreed to compliance monitoring as part of those deals, but it’s not known if they agreed to provide the requested information.

See also:

EEOC chair requested ‘extensive’ info from law firms on DEI practices and hiring; did it cross a line?

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. After DC Circuit reinstates fired agency…

Executive Branch

After DC Circuit reinstates fired agency board members, chief justice pauses action

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 9, 2025, 9:11 am CDT

Updated: Chief Justice John Roberts has temporarily blocked reinstatement of fired board members of two independent agencies after an en banc federal appeals court ruled in their favor Monday.

On Wednesday, Roberts issued an administrative stay that paused reinstatement of Cathy Harris to the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne A. Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board, Law360 reports.

In its April 7 order, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a three-judge panel decision that allowed Trump to remove Harris and Wilcox.

The NLRB enforces labor laws, while the MSPB considers workplace disputes by federal employees. Boards overseeing the agencies resolve appeals following decisions by administrative law judges.

The D.C. Circuit’s en banc order revived a reinstatement order by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia, Law.com reports.

The en banc court cited a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, and a 1958 Supreme Court decision, Wiener v. United States. Those decisions upheld restrictions on removal of government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards, the appeals court said.

“The Supreme Court’s repeated and recent statements that Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener remain precedential require denying the government’s emergency motions for a stay pending appeal,” the en banc majority said.

Four out of 11 en banc judges dissented.

The case is Trump v. Wilcox.

Updated April 9 at 4:17 p.m. to include information on Chief Justice John Roberts’ administrative stay.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Meet the federal judge labeled ‘radical left…

Judiciary

Meet the federal judge labeled ‘radical left lunatic’ by Trump, derided by DOJ for ‘micromanaged’ request

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 20, 2025, 8:50 am CDT

A federal judge facing President Donald Trump’s ire because of his rulings on deportation authority was once a housemate with Brett Kavanaugh, a future U.S. Supreme Court justice, at Yale Law School.

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, 62, of the District of Columbia “has a history of bipartisan support,” the Washington Post reports, having been nominated to the District of Columbia Superior Court by a Republican president and to the federal court in Washington, D.C., by a Democratic president.

He also appears for speaking engagements at Yale with U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District of Columbia, a Trump appointee, where they emphasize a commitment to rule of law, according to NPR.

But Boasberg is being targeted by Trump, who wrote on social media that the judge is a “radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator” who should be impeached.

Boasberg is overseeing a lawsuit challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. Boasberg ordered the administration not to use the law for deportations and told Department of Justice lawyers Saturday that planes carrying the deportees should be turned around.

Three planes carrying 238 immigrants reached their destination in El Salvador in Central America, the New York Times reports. Boasberg gave the administration a Wednesday deadline to provide details on the flights, which was met with a government request for a stay that said the judge’s quest for information was a “micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expedition,” NBC News reports.

“Continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the executive branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case,” the DOJ said.

In a March 19 order, Boasberg agreed to provide the government an extra day to decide whether to invoke the state secrets privilege, “although their grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive.” Rather than engaging in a fishing expedition, he said, he was seeking information “to determine if the government deliberately flouted” his orders.

Boasberg grew up in Washington, D.C., where his father worked for former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, according to the New York Times.

He attended Yale as an undergraduate, where he played basketball and also obtained a master’s degree in history from the University of Oxford. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1990.

After graduation, Boasberg worked as a law clerk for a federal appeals judge, as an associate at two law firms, and as a homicide prosecutor at the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C. He was appointed to the District of Columbia Superior Court in 2002 by former President George W. Bush and to the federal bench in 2011 by former President Barack Obama. He also served a seven-year term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

On the bench, Boasberg “is something of a stickler for footnote brevity,” according to a prior ABA Journal story. He has tossed briefs in several suits for violating a local court ruling banning excessive footnotes.

He is also known “for his booming baritone voice and for peppering legal opinions with colorful language and pop culture references,” according to Reuters. In one opinion, Boasberg “cited a Star Trek reference to the Borg catchphrase ‘Resistance is futile,’” the article reports.

He has also been involved in other cases involving issues of importance to Trump.

“In his 14 years on the federal bench,” the Associated Press reports, Boasberg “has resolved secret grand jury disputes that arose during the special counsel investigations into Trump, oversaw improvements after the Trump-Russia investigation in how the Justice Department conducts national security surveillance, and handled his share of sentencings for rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”

One of the rioters called Boasberg a “clown” and a “fraud” during a court hearing. Boasberg “calmly listened,” according to the AP.

The deportation suit is J.G.G. v. Trump.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DC Circuit allows federal watchdog’s removal…

Constitutional Law

DC Circuit allows federal watchdog’s removal pending expedited appeal; US argued he had gone ‘rogue’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 6, 2025, 11:15 am CST

Updated: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove the leader of the Office of Special Counsel when it granted an emergency government request to stay a federal judge’s order pending appeal.

The appeals court stayed a March 1 preliminary injunction by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia that prevented the removal of Hampton Dellinger from the Office of Special Counsel. The appeals court ordered expedited briefing and arguments in the appeal.

Politico, the Associated Press, the Washington Post, USA Today, CNN and MSNBC have coverage.

In its emergency request, the government had argued that Dellinger was advocating for fired employees and seeking stays of their terminations.

“The court should immediately stay the district court’s order and put an end to Dellinger’s rogue use of executive authority over the president’s objection,” the government brief said.

Dellinger’s office is an independent agency responsible for safeguarding whistleblowers and enforcing ethics laws, explains Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and an ABA Journal contributor, in a Feb. 26 article for the Journal. The special counsel is not the same type of special counsel who is appointed by the U.S. attorney general to handle special investigations.

According to Chemerinsky, the Dellinger case “involves an issue of enormous significance: May a president fire anyone who works in the executive branch of government even when there is a statute limiting firing?”

A federal law provides that the special counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” The administration contends that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with a president’s ability to exercise executive powers under Article II.

Jackson upheld the law when she granted the preliminary injunction.

The case made a previous trip to the U.S. Supreme Court after Jackson granted a Feb. 12 temporary restraining order preventing Dellinger’s removal. The high court did not intervene at that point.

Dellinger announced Thursday that he is dropping his legal battle to stay in the job, the National Law Journal reports.

The case is Dellinger v. Bessent.

Updated March 6 at 3:30 p.m. to report that Hampton Dellinger is dropping the case.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Third federal appeals court rejects Trump…

Constitutional Law

Third federal appeals court rejects Trump administration bid on birthright citizenship

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 12, 2025, 12:05 pm CDT

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston on Tuesday refused to allow President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship to take effect, joining two other federal appeals courts that also ruled against the administration on the issue.

The 1st Circuit refused to stay pending appeal a federal judge’s Feb. 13 nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the order. The appeals court joined the 9th Circuit at San Francisco and the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia, which issued similar rulings.

Law360, Reuters, the Associated Press and the Volokh Conspiracy covered the March 11 decision.

Trump’s Jan. 20 order bans birthright citizenship when a mother is in the country illegally or temporarily and when a father was not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time.

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts had granted a preliminary injunction to 18 states that challenged the order, finding that they were likely to succeed in their argument that it violated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The District of Columbia and San Francisco were also plaintiffs.

On appeal, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers did not “make any developed argument” that the government was likely to succeed in showing that Trump’s order was constitutional, the 1st Circuit said. Instead, lawyers claimed that the plaintiffs did not have standing.

The states had countered that they had standing because the order would result in a loss of federal funds for health care, special needs education, child welfare and applications for Social Security numbers.

The 1st Circuit sided with the states, finding that the government had not made the strong showing needed to overcome state arguments.

1st Circuit Chief Judge David J. Barron, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote the opinion in the case, New Jersey v. Trump.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin applauded the decision in a statement cited by Law360.

“Every court to consider President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship by executive order has found it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and every appellate court has rejected DOJ’s effort to put his order back in place,” Platkin said. “We are thrilled with the 1st Circuit’s decision, and we look forward to standing up for our birthright citizens no matter how far the Trump administration takes this case.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Citing ‘anti-democratic takeover’ by ‘activist’…

Civil Procedure

Citing ‘anti-democratic takeover’ by ‘activist’ plaintiffs, Trump seeks money bond for injunction requests

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 13, 2025, 3:38 pm CDT

President Donald Trump is directing federal agencies to seek a money bond when plaintiffs file federal lawsuits against the administration that seek temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.

“In recent weeks,” Trump said in a March 11 memo, “activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions” that meddle in executive policymaking.

“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,” the memo said.

To deter frivolous litigation, Trump said, parties seeking injunctions against the federal government should be required under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to post security that would cover potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction.

A White House fact sheet said injunctions “can cost taxpayers millions or even billions of dollars, especially when they mandate continued funding.”

Several judges have denied bond requests, including U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson of the District of Maryland, according to Bloomberg Law and Law & Crime.

Courts have frequently waived bond requirements “where a fundamental constitutional right is at stake,” Abelson wrote.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the District of Columbia also denied bond in a challenge to a Trump administration funding freeze, according to Bloomberg Law, Reuters and Law & Crime.

“In a case where the government is alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients, it would defy logic—and contravene the very basis of this opinion—to hold plaintiffs hostage for the resulting harm,” AliKhan said in granting a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the District of Maryland also refused to require a bond in a challenge to anti-LGBTQ executive orders, Law.com reports.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.