Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
The bill makes a party that moves to enjoin or restrain the United States financially liable for costs and damages if a court later finds the injunction or restraint was wrongful and the Rule 65 security (bond) was not ordered or was insufficient. It applies to the United States, including agencies, officers, and employees.
Progressives emphasize chilling effects on public‑interest suits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a specific problem and creates a direct liability remedy, but its construction is minimal and lacks detailed mechanisms, implementation procedures, fiscal acknowledgement, integration with existing law, and protections for foreseeable edge cases.
The bill makes a party that moves to enjoin or restrain the United States financially liable for costs and damages if a court later finds the injunction or restraint was wrongful and the Rule 65 security (bond) was not ordered or was insufficient.
It applies to the United States, including agencies, officers, and employees.
The movant is charged with paying the costs and damages the United States sustained when bond protections are absent or inadequate.
Simple, low‑cost statutory tweak that still raises civil‑liberties and access‑to‑court objections; modest chance absent political alignment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a specific problem and creates a direct liability remedy, but its construction is minimal and lacks detailed mechanisms, implementation procedures, fiscal acknowledgement, integration with existing law, and protections for foreseeable edge cases.
Progressives emphasize chilling effects on public‑interest suits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize chilling effects on public‑interest suits
Sees taxpayer protection merits but worries the provision will chill meritorious public‑interest litigation.
Would seek narrow standards and explicit good‑faith defenses before supporting.
Views the bill as a reasonable taxpayer protection measure but notes the text is sparse.
Would favor it if courts get clear procedures and safeguards to protect legitimate challenges.
Likely supportive as a tool to hold plaintiffs accountable and deter injunction abuse against the federal government.
Sees it as protecting federal operations and taxpayer dollars.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple, low‑cost statutory tweak that still raises civil‑liberties and access‑to‑court objections; modest chance absent political alignment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize chilling effects on public‑interest suits
Simple, low‑cost statutory tweak that still raises civil‑liberties and access‑to‑court objections; modest chance absent political alignment.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly identifies a specific problem and creates a direct liability remedy, but its construction is minimal and lacks detailed mechanisms, implementation procedures,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.