Time for the DOJ to Demand Injunction Bonds

[excalibur]

Ah, yes! A very nice arrow in the DOJ quiver, so why aren't they demanding such surety?

The rule is clear, and if a judge refuses, that is an appealable ruling.

(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.​

Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Thunk]

OOOOOOH...ME LIKE!

Me like ALOT!!!

 

[kyzr]

$billions in bonds might stop the democrats push to keep their cash cows.

 

[1srelluc]

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for unfounded state suits?

 

[Thunk]

Now...if Trump wins on appeal...the judge loses the bond

 

[martybegan]

Now...if Trump wins on appeal...the judge loses the bond

Actually it would be the States suing Trump losing the bond.

 

[Rogue AI]

$billions in bonds might stop the democrats push to keep their cash cows.

Especially since they can't just grab it from USAID anymore.

 

[Rogue AI]

Actually it would be the States suing Trump losing the bond.

Or the individuals filing frivolous lawsuits.

 

[martybegan]

Or the individuals filing frivolous lawsuits.

Yes, which in some of these cases right now are Blue State AG's.

 

[1srelluc]

Yes, which in some of these cases right now are Blue State AG's.

No matter.....The sword cuts both ways as it should.

 

[excalibur]