Say no to rule 65(c)

To: Del. Bagnall Tudball, Gov. Moore, Sen. Gile

From: A constituent in Arnold, MD

March 9

The rule outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) requiring plaintiffs to post security for potential costs and damages from preliminary injunctions raises concerning issues of judicial overreach and access to justice. While ensuring accountability is important, imposing excessive financial barriers could deter meritorious cases and undermine the ability of citizens to hold the government accountable through the courts. This policy appears aimed at curbing litigation challenging executive policies, which is a crucial check on government overreach. We should be fostering greater access to the judicial system, not erecting financial obstacles that privilege corporations and wealthy individuals over ordinary citizens seeking to protect their rights. I urge you to critically examine the potential chilling effects and constitutional implications of aggressive enforcement of Rule 65(c) security requirements. Protecting the integrity of our judicial system means preserving it as an open and accessible forum for all

Write to Heather Bagnall Tudball or any of your elected officials

Resistbot is a chatbot that delivers your texts to your elected officials by email, fax, or postal mail. Tap above to give it a try or learn more here!