The Trump administration has taken an aggressive approach to legal challenges against its executive orders. A newly revealed White House memo outlines a strategy that could make it harder to sue the government.
Since taking office as the 47th U.S. president, Donald Trump has signed over 70 executive orders. These cover immigration, financial regulations, and government policies. Some have triggered strong opposition, leading to lawsuits that seek to block them.
High-profile legal battles include one against Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) over federal payments. Another challenges an order affecting transgender women in prisons.
On March 6, the White House issued a memo proposing a rarely used legal rule. This strategy could financially deter lawsuits against Trump’s administration.
Rare Legal Rule Could Block Lawsuits
The White House memo, obtained by CNN, explains how this rule works. It could require plaintiffs to pay legal costs upfront before suing the government.
The memo states:
“It is the policy of the United States that individuals or groups seeking injunctions against federal policies must assume financial responsibility for costs and damages if the government is later found to have been improperly restrained.”
This policy could discourage legal challenges by making lawsuits financially risky. It does not ban lawsuits but forces plaintiffs to prove they can afford the case.
How This Rule Affects Legal Challenges
If implemented, this rule could make lawsuits against the government harder. Many legal challenges come from nonprofits and advocacy groups with limited funds.
By requiring upfront payments, the administration could reduce the number of lawsuits. Many organizations may drop cases if they lack financial resources.
However, judges—not the administration—would decide on payment requirements. A judge could waive the fee, set a low amount, or impose a high cost.
This places significant power in the hands of the judiciary. Some cases may proceed with minimal fees, while others could face financial roadblocks.
Legal Experts Call Move ‘Unprecedented’
Legal professionals have reacted swiftly to this proposal. Many see it as an attempt to limit oversight of executive actions.
Washington attorney Mark Zaid told CNN:
“This is a highly aggressive move that challenges legal norms. It could give the Trump administration unprecedented power over legal disputes.”
CNN analyst Katelyn Polantz shared reactions from multiple experts. She noted how some liberal and conservative lawyers found the rule surprising:
“When I asked experts if this rule was real, many laughed in disbelief. This provision exists, but no one ever invokes it. Now, Trump’s team is moving forward with it.”
While the rule is legal, no previous administration has applied it in this way. Critics argue it could limit access to justice by raising financial barriers.
Why Trump’s Administration Supports This Rule
The White House memo argues that frequent lawsuits disrupt government functions and burden taxpayers.
The document states:
“Taxpayers not only cover legal costs when policies are enjoined but must also wait for decisions on government policies they voted for.”
The administration claims that excessive lawsuits drain Justice Department resources. Instead of focusing on national security and law enforcement, attorneys must fight what they call frivolous lawsuits.
By introducing financial requirements, Trump’s team hopes to reduce politically motivated legal challenges. Supporters say this will allow policies to take effect without unnecessary delays.
Potential Consequences of This Rule
If implemented, this rule could change the legal landscape for government policies.
Critics’ Concerns:
- Limits citizens’ ability to challenge government overreach.
- Disproportionately affects nonprofits, activists, and advocacy groups.
- Gives the administration an unfair advantage in legal battles.
Supporters’ Arguments:
– Prevents politically driven lawsuits that stall government actions.
– Saves taxpayer money by reducing unnecessary legal expenses.
– Allows elected policies to be implemented without constant court battles.
Regardless of its impact, judges will decide whether to enforce financial payments on plaintiffs. This ensures the courts still have authority over legal disputes.
What’s Next?
The legal and political response to this move will shape future challenges to executive orders. Advocacy groups, lawmakers, and legal experts are expected to analyze and fight this rule in court.
If enforced, this legal strategy could set a precedent for future administrations. Some worry it will erode legal protections for marginalized communities and advocacy groups.
As the situation unfolds, federal judges will play a key role in determining whether this policy becomes a legal reality.
Conclusion
Trump’s administration is pushing for a bold legal shift that could alter how lawsuits challenge government policies. The final decision rests with the courts, but its impact could reshape executive power and legal battles in the United States.
About The Author
Who would want to challenge “draining the swamp”?
Ever think of that?
HOORAY ! THESE MONEY SUCKING LAWSUITS ARE A DRAIN ON TAXPAYER MONEY, MOST OF THEM ARE DROPPED FOR LACK OF STANDING