Cnn
–
The Trump administration takes a hit Assault of emergency proceedings Being deposited against him by invoking a rarely used rule which can force people who dispute the government to display money at the start of a judicial case, according to a white house memo.
In theory, this decision could cool individuals, unions and defense groups for deposit affairs, and legal experts say that it could be a sneaky and potentially effective tool for the Ministry of Justice.
Several proceedings against the Trump administration are filed each day immigration And diversity policy changes, Expenses are concededthe dismissal of government employees And Elon Musk’s efforts Government Department of Effectiveness. Thursday, nearly 100 proceedings like these are active before the federal courts.
The White House circulated the note of agency leaders Thursday criticizing the prosecution as partisan efforts which are potentially frivolous, “undermining the democratic process” and operating the courts where there can be nice judges.
But a handful of prosecution succeeded in the early stadiums, convincing judges that the changes in the Trump administration have made can be illegal, and the agencies had to suspend some of the administration plans. A federal judge Thursday, for example, decided that the Trump administration “went above the congress” illegally when it categorically frozen federal subsidies with state health care programs and projects for improving the highway, electricity, high speed and clean water.
Almost all cases against the administration are still underway, some progressing in the evidence collection phases, then, probably, calls.
“Taxpayers are obliged not only to cover the costs of their antics when funding and hiring decisions are overrun, but must unnecessarily wait for government policies for which they voted,” said the memo. “In addition, this situation is reflected in the Ministry of Justice, the main agency for the application of the country’s law, devoting substantial resources to the fight against frivolous combinations instead of defending public security.”
In the memo sent to executive agency leaders Thursday, the White House encouraged the invocation of the procedural rule before the court.
The memo has announced: “It is the United States policy to demand that the parties requesting injunctions against the federal government must cover costs and damages suffered if the government is ultimately deemed wrongly or wrongly forced.”
But the memo has recognized the roles that the courts will play. The judges should accept the need for an initial payment in cases, fix the amounts and apply the payments.
“The federal courts should hold the litigants responsible for their false declarations and their misunderstanding injunctions,” also said the memo.
Invoke the rule for initial payment in prosecution like this is practically unknown in the courts across the country – especially when the government is prosecuted.
But familiar legal experts with the rule say that because it is on books, the Trump administration can try to use it to their advantage.
“It is a very daring decision that violates standards,” said Mark Zaid, a lawyer based in Washington who brought an emergency matter against the Ministry of Justice last month to stop the release of FBI’s names that worked on federal criminal investigations on Trump. “It will be open to the courts … Theoretically, it could be incredibly powerful for the Trump administration.”
The Trump administration “will exploit any escape or existing occasion to make things difficult for anyone who disputes it,” added Zaid. “In this case, they actually identified something which, on his face, seems to be a utility to count on.”
Zaid said he thought there were possible questions about the payment rule could become fodder for the Supreme Court, especially if the Trump administration tries to invoke it in many different courts.
Lawyers of the Ministry of Justice fighting against the various prosecution should probably ask the judges to fix the amounts. The judges could always set a very low cost, such as $ 1, or not use the rule at all.
But they could also set high prices due.
The rule, part of the federal rules of civil procedure governing emergency requests for orders and restriction injunctions, indicates that the amount of security could be what “the court considers that the costs and damage suffered by any part have been deemed wrongly or restricted”.