The White House memo ‘violates the norms’
Donald Trump’s administration has issued a ‘bold’ response to emergency lawsuits filed against its executive orders detailed in a memo issued by the White House.
Trump’s Administration Seeks Legal Rule to Force Plaintiffs to Pay in Lawsuits
After his swearing-in as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump quickly signed off on over 70 executive orders by February 20—a bold move, but not without controversy.
While many of these orders have been met with intense backlash, some sparking emergency lawsuits to block them, Trump’s administration is firing back with a rare legal rule. This move aims to force plaintiffs challenging the administration’s actions to pay for the costs upfront.
According to a memo circulated by the White House on March 6, the new rule would mandate that any party seeking an injunction against the federal government must cover the costs and damages if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully restrained or enjoined.
The controversial proposal signals a tougher stance from Trump’s team as they push back against legal challenges, particularly in cases involving Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) gaining access to sensitive federal payments and other contentious decisions, such as the treatment of transgender women in prisons.
As tensions between the administration and its opponents escalate, this rule could set the stage for a major legal battle over the balance of power in the US courts.
What Does the New Legal Rule Mean for Those Challenging the Administration?
The newly proposed legal rule from the Trump administration could have a significant impact on those who challenge its decisions in court. If the rule goes into effect, individuals or groups seeking to block the administration’s executive orders could be required to pay upfront for the costs and damages if the government ultimately prevails.
This presents a major barrier for those without the financial resources to afford the upfront payment, which could deter many from pursuing legal action. Essentially, it could prevent legal challenges from moving forward, potentially allowing more of Trump’s executive orders to go unopposed and take effect.
However, the memo clarifies that the administration would not directly make the final call on whether plaintiffs have to pay upfront. Instead, it’s up to judges to decide whether the upfront payment rule is applied and to determine how much the plaintiffs must pay. Judges could potentially choose not to enforce any payment requirement, or they could decide to make the payment either very high or very low, depending on the circumstances of the case.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal experts have been quick to weigh in, raising concerns about the potential chilling effect this rule could have on access to justice. Some argue that the rule could disproportionately affect marginalized or smaller groups that may not have the financial backing to take on such cases, leaving the government with an unfair advantage in the legal system.
Others point out that this could lead to a situation where only well-funded organizations or individuals can afford to challenge government decisions, undermining the principles of fairness and accessibility to the courts.
As the legal battle over this rule unfolds, it’s clear that the decision could set a precedent for how future administrations handle legal challenges, especially in the context of executive power.
Legal Experts Respond to Trump’s ‘Bold Move’
Legal experts have had strong reactions to the Trump administration’s proposal to invoke a rare legal rule requiring challengers to pay upfront for legal costs and damages. Washington lawyer Mark Zaid called the move a “very bold move” that could violate established norms, ultimately giving the administration incredible power over those attempting to challenge its decisions.
CNN reporter Katelyn Polantz reflected on the reaction from various legal experts when she first inquired about the rule. Many were shocked and even laughed at the audacity of the administration invoking this rare legal provision. “Even liberal lawyers, who have been involved in similar cases, were stunned. They couldn’t believe someone found this rule,” she said. “They can invoke it, but no one ever does. Yet, the Trump administration is going for it.”
Why Does the Memo Argue the Rule Is Necessary?
The memo from the White House argues that the rule is necessary as a protective measure for the federal government. It states that lawsuits seeking injunctions (which stop government actions) could cause the government significant harm, especially when such injunctions are found to be wrongful. In these cases, the administration argues that the parties challenging its decisions should be financially responsible for the costs and damages that arise from halting government action prematurely.
The memo emphasizes that the rule is meant to discourage frivolous lawsuits and ensure that those who challenge the government have a legitimate interest in doing so, with the ability to back up their claims financially. The White House views this rule as a way to protect the integrity of government operations and reduce the burden on taxpayers caused by lengthy legal battles.
Critics, however, see it as an undue restriction on the right to challenge government policies, arguing that it could discourage legitimate legal challenges and disproportionately favor the government. The debate over this rule could have lasting implications on how the judicial system handles executive power and legal challenges in the future.
The Trump administration argues that invoking this legal rule is necessary to protect taxpayers and government operations. According to the memo, taxpayers are forced to bear the costs when funding and hiring decisions are blocked by lawsuits. This, in turn, delays government policies that were put in place by elected officials, slowing down progress on the actions voters have supported.
The administration also contends that this situation places a significant burden on the Department of Justice (DOJ), which must dedicate substantial resources to defending against frivolous lawsuits. These resources, they argue, could be better used to focus on more critical issues, such as public safety, rather than fighting legal battles over the administration’s policies. In short, the administration views this rule as a way to prevent unnecessary legal delays and protect government efficiency by making sure that only serious, well-supported challenges to government actions are allowed to proceed.
