Exploring Judicial Accountability: How Injunctions Shape Trump Policies and Rule Compliance

Scales of justice in an empty courtroom.

Federal judges are repeatedly issuing costly injunctions against Trump administration policies without requiring plaintiffs to post bonds as legally required, potentially costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars with no recourse for recovery.

Quick Takes

Federal judges are allegedly violating Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by issuing injunctions without requiring plaintiffs to post bonds.
Two recent injunctions forcing the reinstatement of 25,000 federal employees could cost taxpayers up to $200 million monthly.
The White House has issued guidance directing federal agencies to push for Rule 65(c) enforcement in court.
Critics including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk have called for action against judges who ignore this procedural rule.
Legal experts warn of potential constitutional crisis as administration questions judicial authority.

Judicial Rule Violations Costing Taxpayers Millions

A growing controversy surrounds federal judges who are allegedly violating Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when issuing injunctions against Trump administration policies. This rule explicitly requires parties seeking an injunction to post a bond before an injunction can be issued. The purpose is straightforward – to protect defendants from financial harm if they ultimately prevail in court. According to Daniel Huff, a legal expert familiar with administrative law, judges are consistently ignoring this requirement, creating potentially massive financial liabilities for American taxpayers.

A prime example involves two federal judges who ordered the Trump administration to reinstate approximately 25,000 probationary federal employees. This single action could cost the government between $100 to $200 million per month in salaries and benefits. If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the government had the legal authority to terminate these employees, taxpayers would have no mechanism to recover these substantial expenditures – precisely the scenario Rule 65(c) was designed to prevent. “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,” Huff explains.

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

White House Response and Legal Rationale

In response to these judicial actions, the White House has issued guidance to federal agencies instructing them to push for the enforcement of Rule 65(c) in federal courts. This represents an effort to ensure that procedural rules are followed consistently across all cases involving the administration. The guidance underscores the importance of protecting taxpayer funds from being spent on potentially invalid injunctions while cases work their way through the legal system.

Rule 65(c) serves a crucial function in the judicial system by filtering out frivolous cases and ensuring plaintiffs have financial skin in the game. The rule requires that bonds should scale appropriately with the size and potential cost of the complaint. Critics argue that judges are selectively enforcing procedural rules based on political considerations rather than legal merits, creating an uneven playing field when the administration’s policies face legal challenges.

Growing Tensions Between Branches of Government

The dispute over Rule 65(c) enforcement represents just one aspect of growing tensions between the judicial branch and the Trump administration. President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and prominent allies like Elon Musk have increasingly questioned judicial oversight of executive actions. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has accused courts of abusing the rule of law and thwarting the will of the people through judicial overreach.

Legal experts note that while President Trump has indicated intentions to abide by court rulings and pursue appeals through proper channels, the administration’s rhetoric challenging judicial authority has raised concerns. Some constitutional scholars warn of a potential constitutional crisis if the administration were to refuse compliance with court orders. Judges have limited direct power to enforce compliance beyond contempt charges or involvement of the U.S. Marshals Service, making the respect for judicial authority a cornerstone of American governance.