The article discusses the implications of a recent GOP bill which modifies Rule 65(c), mandating that plaintiffs seeking injunctions against the government post a bond. This change raises concerns about access to justice and the financial barriers it creates for individuals fighting civil rights violations. An anecdote from a judge illustrates the absurdity of quantifying the protection of civil rights. Despite the negative implications, there is a glimmer of hope as advocacy efforts have succeeded in prompting revisions to this policy, emphasizing the need for continued vigilance in civil rights matters.
The GOP's legislation introduced a significant change to Rule 65(c), necessitating bond requirements for injunctions, impacting civil rights litigation costs.
A judge suggested that plaintiffs could simply put up a peppercorn to safeguard access to justice, illustrating the absurdity of valuing civil rights.
Maintaining civil rights against government actions now requires substantial financial backing, with costs running into millions due to the new legal challenges.
Despite the challenges posed by the GOP bill, advocacy has led to revisions, underscoring the importance of vigilance in protecting civil rights.
Collection
[
|
...
]