When courts issue wrongful injunctions, taxpayers are often left paying for the damage done to their own government. But Reps. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., and Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., are introducing a bill on Monday that aims to shift that burden from taxpayers to the plaintiffs seeking these injunctions, forcing the courts to enforce pre-existing federal law.
The legislation, titled the “Wrongful Injunction Accountability Act of 2025,” seeks to “ensure compliance with Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in restraining actions brought against the United States,” according to a draft text of the bill provided to The Daily Signal.
“Our bill creates a way to enforce these taxpayer protections already on the books, discouraging frivolous lawsuits and ensuring the responsible use of Americans’ tax dollars,” Schmidt told The Daily Signal.
“The American people’s voice is suppressed when a single judge can impose injunctions that disrupt the work of elected officials chosen by voters,” Hageman told The Daily Signal. “The Wrongful Injunction Accountability Act discourages such litigation and leaves the plaintiffs responsible for costs and damages of baseless injunctions. American taxpayers deserve a judicial system they can trust, this bill restores that.”
As leftist lawfare seeks to undermine President Donald Trump’s agenda, the legislation would codify a memorandum the president issued in March.
Under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order is required to provide an assurance—typically in the form of a bond—to the court, meant to cover potential damages incurred by the enjoined party if it is ultimately determined the injunction was wrongfully issued. The courts, however, have frequently waived or minimized the requirements laid out in Rule 65(c).
The bill stipulates that when courts fail to demand this security, or if the amount paid by plaintiffs is insufficient, “the movant shall be liable to the United States for the costs and damages sustained.”
“In recent years, injunctions brought against the federal government have been abused through overuse,” Schmidt said.
“When these injunctions are found to be wrongfully entered, not only do the gears of self-government grind to a halt, but the disruption also often results in an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars,” Schmidt explained. “That’s why current federal rules are designed to discourage plaintiffs from rolling the dice by seeking injunctions of dubious merit. Current federal rules already require a party seeking an injunction against the United States to post bond so taxpayers are not stuck with the cost if courts eventually rule against the injunction. This rule is supposed to protect taxpayers, but courts too often do not enforce it, and taxpayers are left holding the bag.”
The new legislation follows a memorandum sent by President Donald Trump to department heads on March 11 titled, “Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c),” which claimed that waiving the practice, and thereby inviting left-wing lawfare, amounted to “anti-democratic takeover” of the government.
“In recent weeks, activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions far beyond the scope of relief contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, functionally inserting themselves into the executive policy making process and therefore undermining the democratic process,” the memorandum stated.
“Taxpayers are forced not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are enjoined, but must needlessly wait for government policies they voted for,” the memo continued. “Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to demand that parties seeking injunctions against the federal government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions.”
By the end of April, more than 220 lawsuits had been filed against the Trump administration, and, according to The New York Times, at least 160 rulings in these cases have provided at least temporary pauses on Trump policies.
“This bill addresses the kind of frivolous litigation we’ve seen run rampant in the United States over that past few months,” Hageman said. “By requiring a bond from parties requesting injunctions, this will serve as a tool to enforce Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) and will limit judicial activism.”
Bradley Devlin is politics editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Bradley.
Reprinted with permission from The Daily Signal by Bradley Devlin.
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.
Based on the description given in the article of what the potential bill seeks to remedy, which is the intentional lawfare to subvert the existing rule of law in this country, the premise makes sense as far as it goes. However, there are issues that would prevent this bill from every being passed by Congress and then signed into law by the POTUS:
1) This bill would garner, at best, perhaps one or potentially two Democrat votes in the Senate. Even if every Republican Senator were to vote for this bill, which is not assured given what we’re seeing from some GOP members of both the House and Senate to date, once it has potentially been passed by the House, it is extremely unlikely there would be sufficient Democrat support in the Senate to reach the 60-vote margin needed for passage.
Why would most of today’s Democrats in the Congress support legislation that would undermine one of their few effective means of creating speedbumps to hinder the current administration? Answer: They wouldn’t. Just being realistic here. There is simply no widespread support within the Democrat party to end the constant lawfare tactics being employed by proxies of the Democrat party to hinder existing rule of law in this country.
2) Money is NOT an issue for the people bringing most of these lawfare cases forward to the courts. They are backed by individuals or organizations with hundreds of millions or even potentially billions of dollars to fund the bonds referenced in this article. The same people bankrolling the supposed plaintiffs in these cases, are the same people who are well aware which Democrat appointed judges are the most likely to rule in their favor and then issue the desired national injunctions to hinder the Trump administration.
The intent of the two GOP members of Congress may be good, but when dealing with a very well-funded and extremely well-connected political adversary, they need to be far more creative in whatever approach they may ultimately devise to come up with a viable strategy to win. Sadly, this one isn’t that approach.
“forcing the courts to enforce pre-existing federal law”
Its really a sad state of affairs when we need another law to exist existing laws. Yet we only have to look at Mary Jane and immigration so see how the Left has openly flaunted federal laws.
Even a larger problem is the Right allowed them to do it!
DO SO Now
It’s very easy to tie up everything and anything that Trump tries to do in legal battles when you can force the taxpayer to pay for all the failed attempts! This is long overdue!
A three strikes and you’re out law should be passed so that any time a lower court is overturned by a higher court three times the judge is fired and replaced. Only constitutional concerns should be addressed.
This we do need!
Where’s the argument that says judges who do this are doing something unconstitutional? I think we neglect sometimes to refer to that important document that we are quickly forgetting….
.