How To Stop ALL These Injunctions
The Market Ticker - Cancelled - What 'They' Don't Want Published
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in any firm or security discussed here, and have no duty to disclose same.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2025-02-11 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in 47 , 2226 references Ignore this thread
How To Stop ALL These Injunctions
[Comments enabled]

Right here.

(c) Security. The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.

The Federal Government does not have to post such a bond but States and other filers do.

The amount must be sufficient to compensate the other side (against whom the injunction or TRO issues) if you ultimately lose, so if you ask for a national TRO or injunction in the general sense we're talking about millions -- or even billions.  In the case of fraudulent payments being uncovered, as is currently the case, the potential damage from an injunction is in the tens of billions of dollars and the moving states must post said bond.

In the case of continuing damage during the time the TRO or injunction is in force the bond must, by the rules of procedure, be sufficient to compensate the enjoined party through the entire time the injunction or TRO is in force.  If you win you get it back but if you lose its forfeit to the party you enjoined to compensate them for the damage you caused them.

Who's going to write that bond?  Nobody, in that sort of amount, so they'd have to post it in cash.

Why isn't the Trump Administration demanding that said bonds be posted with all such filings?  I remind you that the Executive has allegedly found tens of billions of improper or fraudulent payments in one area (Social Security) alone and the GAO claims over $100 billion a year is improperly paid through CMS -- and the latter is the government's own numbers, not DOGE's, so on its face any injunction compelling continued payments must cover at least that much times the expected pendency of final resolution.

Doing so is required by law, it is not discretionary, and it ends this bull**** in an hour.

Does the Trump Administration want to win or are they trying to lose?