I was a white house lawyer and found Trump’s path around the left

The federal judge has ordered Trump’s administration to re -establish millions in paused foreign assistance. This is the last in a series of cases where activists have won preliminary bans by blocking almost every major reform of Trump administration.

These are bans before trial, which means that blocked reforms can ultimately support, Just like the Supreme Court supported travel prohibition More than a year after stopping only a few weeks for President Donald Trump’s first term.

But the judges who issue these prohibitions are alone violation of the law If they do not require the plaintiff to set bonds for prohibitions in the event that they eventually lose.

Here’s an argument that Trump hopes

Federal district courts are regulated by a number of rules proposed by the Supreme Court and ratified Congress. They have full the force of the law. Rule 65 (c) Allows the courts to issue a preliminary prohibition “only if” the prosecutor publishes a bond in the amount “considers the court to be relevant to the cost of the costs and damage for which any party is found to have been wrongly enjoyed.” The rule is designed to make the defendant a whole and to distract frivolous claims. As justice Stevens explainedThe bond is the plaintiff “guarantee that the law will support the issuance of the prohibition”.

The language of the request for bond prohibition is required and thus implemented for 40 years. Then, as liberal activists adopted litigation as a policy weapon, these relationships “What may include Very large amounts of money, “became the main” obstacle “to their agenda. The sympathetic judges came to aid by declaring bond bonds to discretionary.

The spin started with only two sentences in the sixth round opinion. The court explained that the Directive of the Rules to set the amount of the bond on the “such amount that the court considers the correct” enables the judge of the trial to fully renounce the bonds.

The problem is that this is not what 65 (C) says. The court deceptively arranged the text of the rules by shortening the end that directs the judges to choose an appropriate amount that will pay unjustly enjoyed “costs and damage” the defendant. University of North Carolina prof. Dan B. Dobbs criticized the decision, noting that “there was no other discussion of a point, through analysis, legislative history or precedent, which seems to be completely completely completely lack. ”

Still, other courts followed the suit and until 1985, approximately half of the jurisdiction He treated the obligatory request as a discretionary, ignoring it or by nominating the amount. Their approach is contrary to the text and history of 65 (c), which show the intentional decision to become mandatory bonds.

Rule 65 (c) dates to the judiciary Coded from 1926. His language originated directly from Clayton’s law, provided that no ban is issued “Except for safety” and explicitly abolished the provision in the 1911 judiciary law, setting bonds for prohibitions ” discretion judgment. ”

Similarly, without any textual basis, activist judges have drawn the exception of public interest. The 60s began with the recipients of well -being lawsuit In order to eliminate restrictions on their benefits and ecologists trying to block projects like spread San Francisco Airport. Soon the judges issued prohibitions without any bonds if they felt that the cases were included “important social considerations. “IN file Including the union elections, the first round created a balance test, including the impact on the federal rights of the plaintiff, the relative power of the parties and the possibility of payment.

None of this finds any order in the code. At best, these considerations of policy justify the change of bond requests, not neglecting it. The exception of public interest exception also stems from the false assumption that activist lawsuits necessarily serve a public interest. Huge parts public support for Trump’s policies About foreign assistance, immigration and reduction of federal labor. For them, preliminary prohibitions prevent a public interest that does not serve. Accordingly, there is no moral justification for the exception of the bond request.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

Trump’s administration must inform the judges that they will follow the law, but they must. This means respecting preliminary bans only if the judge includes an appropriate bond according to the rule.

For example, a judge recently ordered The Directorate of Returning a Foreign Aid Agreement is valid $ 24 million to litigation. But since the ban covers all foreign help contracts, the total cost could be in billions. However, the judge did not ask for any bond, and did not even refer to the Rule 65 (C).

In order to assist the judges in the installation of the bond, the Ministry of Justice should be included in its exhibited assessments of expert expenses from government economists.

It is important that prosecutors who cannot afford to publish these bonds can still challenge administration policies. But they will actually have to prove their case, instead of achieving a quick victory before prescribing that kills the momentum of administration, even if they reversed later.

Click here to get the Fox News app

The spin began with only two sentences in the opinion of the sixth round. The court explained that the Directive of the Rules to set the amount of the bond on the “such amount that the court considers the correct” enables the judge of the trial to fully renounce the bonds.

Some Republicans could worry that 65 (c) could be turned against them with a future democratic administration that faces legal challenges. But as an empirical thing, Republicans have a lot more than that over half Of all the orders published since 1963, they have been issued against Trump’s administration. And this is data from 2023 before the avalanche of prohibitions that began after Trump’s second inauguration.

Forcing judges to obey the ordinary language of the Rules 65 (c) is an elegant solution that respects the legal system by returning the rule of law.