/r/50501 Mirror

This potentially could disadvantage regular citizens and activist groups, especially when they’re trying to challenge powerful actors, including the government itself.

Here’s why:

1. Security Bond Requirement Can Be a Barrier

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) requires that anyone requesting an injunction or temporary restraining order must post a bond or other security*l. This is meant to protect the other side (e.g., the government or a corporation) from losses if it turns out the court order was wrongfully issued.

But for regular people or groups without deep pockets, this bond can be expensive—sometimes tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. So if someone is trying to stop a government action they believe is unlawful (like a wrongful eviction, deportation, or environmental harm), they might not be able to afford the security, even if they have a strong case.

2. This Law Removes an Enforcement Option If No Security Is Posted

The part you asked about takes it further: if the court does issue an injunction or restraining order but doesn’t require a bond, then the court can’t spend government money to enforce it (e.g., by punishing violations through contempt proceedings).

So now:

*If a citizen gets a restraining order without posting a bond (maybe the judge waived it for fairness), and

*The government ignores the order, then

*The court can’t use federal funds to punish the government for violating it.

That severely limits the practical power of the order, especially against well-resourced or powerful parties.

In this case it's trying to be used to chill civil action against the government.