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.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Criticizing plaintiff’s ‘chutzpah,’ federal…

Trials & Litigation

Criticizing plaintiff’s ‘chutzpah,’ federal judge holds lawyer jointly responsible for over $207K in legal fees

By Debra Cassens Weiss

August 29, 2024, 2:34 pm CDT

A federal judge in Houston is holding a lawyer and his client liable for more than $207,500 in their opponent’s legal fees, saying they filed a patent infringement lawsuit and continued to litigate it after the defendant “pointed out its obvious lack of merit.”

U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas required Houston lawyer William P. Ramey III and his client VDPP to pay the fees in their suit contending that a Volkswagen backup camera infringed VDPP’s patent, Reuters reports.

VDPP had argued that the fee award should be limited to the time spent defending “the exceptional portion of the case,” a reference to parts of a case found to be frivolous or unreasonable.

Rosenthal responded that the entire case was frivolous, and VDPP’s arguments displayed “chutzpah.”

“The entire case was exceptional, from the outset, for reasons that VDPP and its counsel knew,” wrote Rosenthal in her Aug. 13 decision. “There is no need to allocate the fees between the frivolous and nonfrivolous aspects of the case. It was all frivolous.”

VDPP sought future damages that were “clearly unrecoverable” because the patent had expired, Rosenthal wrote. The company sought past damages that were “clearly unrecoverable” because VDPP had not complied with marking requirements, she said.

And VDPP “lied about the existence of prior licensing agreements that confirmed the meritless nature of its case,” Rosenthal said.

In a prior decision, Rosenthal said settlement agreements licensing the VDPP patent did not require licensees to comply with marking requirements. VDPP had said there were no settlement agreements—only “agreements in principle,” Rosenthal said.

According to Reuters, Ramey and his law firm filed more than 100 suits this year, including at least 25 in which VDPP was the plaintiff. Federal judges have imposed fee sanctions in Ramey’s cases at least seven times in four years, according to Reuters. The sanctions total is at least $810,000, according to the wire service.

Ramey told Reuters in a statement that he and VDPP “respect all court orders. We appeal those orders we think are incorrect, as we have done in this case.”

Ramey did not immediately reply to an ABA Journal request for comment made in an email and in a message left with his firm.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyers representing transgender plaintiffs…

Ethics

Lawyers representing transgender plaintiffs face possible sanctions for alleged ‘judge shopping’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2024, 12:45 pm CDT

A federal judge in Alabama has directed 11 lawyers to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for alleged “judge shopping” in lawsuits challenging a ban on some gender-affirming medical procedures for transgender minors in the state.

On March 19, U.S. District Judge Liles C. Burke of the Northern District of Alabama, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, unsealed an October 2023 report, which found that 11 out of 39 lawyers for the plaintiffs tried to circumvent random case assignment procedures. The report was conducted by a panel of three Alabama federal judges after Burke expressed concern about judge shopping.

Also on March 19, Burke unsealed his order to show cause, which was initially filed Feb. 21.

Law360, Reuters, Bloomberg Law and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

“It is one thing for attorneys to fret about potential judicial assignments before the ball is snapped (i.e., before a case is assigned),” the three federal judges wrote in the unsealed report. “It is another to try to change the play after the case has been assigned.”

The plaintiffs’ lawyers dropped two suits challenging the transgender medical law after the cases ended up before Burke. A new challenge with different plaintiffs was then filed in the Middle District of Alabama, where U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter, is located.

The new case was not assigned to Thompson, however. It was instead assigned to Burke, who “perhaps ironically,” the report said, blocked a section of the law banning puberty blockers, according to NPR. A federal appeals court later lifted Burke’s injunction.

Lawyers had failed to get one of the two initial cases before Thompson by marking the civil cover sheet as related to a previous case in which Thompson ruled for transgender plaintiffs in a challenge to Alabama’s policy regarding sex changes on driver’s licenses, according to the Associated Press.

The 11 lawyers are ordered to appear before Burke on May 22 and 23 for a sanctions hearing.

Burke’s order directs the lawyers to show cause why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for judge shopping and for misrepresenting or failing to disclose key facts during the inquiry. Certain lawyers were also ordered to show cause whether they should be sanctioned for deliberately misleading the three-judge panel and for failing to get their clients’ consent before dismissing one of the cases.

According to news coverage, the 11 lawyers were from these groups and law firms: the Southern Poverty Law Center, GLBTQ Advocates & Defenders, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Alabama, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, Lightfoot Franklin & White, Cooley, and King & Spalding. (The King & Spalding lawyer is now with a different firm, while the Lambda Legal lawyer is now with the U.S. Department of Justice.)

Representatives of the groups and firms defended the work of their attorneys, according ti Law360. A Cooley representative told the publication that its attorneys “carried out their responsibilities appropriately and acted with integrity in this matter.”

A Lightfoot Franklin representative told Law360 that the firm is “confident that our attorneys acted in good faith and with no intent to violate any law, rule or established caselaw.”

Burke is sitting by designation in the case, Boe v. Marshall, filed in the Middle District of Alabama.

See also:

“‘Judge shopping’ in federal courts should end, House urges”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Florida can’t enforce law blocking real estate…

Real Estate & Property Law

Florida can’t enforce law blocking real estate purchases by Chinese citizens against 2 plaintiffs, court rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 6, 2024, 1:05 pm CST

A federal appeals court has ruled that a Florida law barring real estate purchases by Chinese citizens can’t be enforced against two plaintiffs while their court challenge continues.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta said the plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the Florida statute is preempted by federal law. The appeals court blocked enforcement against two plaintiffs with pending real estate transactions.

Reuters and Politico have coverage of the Feb. 1 decision, while the Volokh Conspiracy has highlights.

The federal law establishes a system for security review of real estate purchases by foreign nationals, according to a Feb. 1 press release by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which seeks to protect and promote the civil rights of Asian Americans.

The Florida law, Senate Bill 264, generally bars any real-property purchases in the state by any person whose permanent domicile is in China and who is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

People domiciled in other countries “of concern” who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents may buy Florida property—unless it is within 10 miles of a military installation or critical infrastructure facility.

In a concurrence, Judge Nancy G. Abudu said she agreed that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their preemption argument. But she would have also granted the preliminary injunction based on a second ground— that the law likely violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Abudu acknowledged U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that any state can deny aliens the right to own land within its borders. But the Supreme Court has since called into question that decision, Terrace v. Thompson, and the cases that followed, Abudu said.

Abudu is an appointee of President Joe Biden. Other judges on the panel are Judge Kevin Newsom, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, and Judge Adalberto Jordan, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

The case is Shen v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Agriculture.

The plaintiffs are a real estate company and Chinese immigrants who can’t buy a home in Florida, even though they live, work and raise families there.

The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the DeHeng Law Offices, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.