According to this article, a federal judge following procedures must have a party post a bond before an injunction is awarded to cover costs if the plaintiff is wrong. Otherwise, if after all appeals the request for the injunction leads to economic damage to the defendant, and the plaintiff is wrong, the bond pays for the damages. If this bond is like most bonds, either the bond is furnished by the plaintiff in secured funds, or the plaintiff purchases the bond at at a price the bonding agent feels is a good price for the possible exposure, and the plaintiff pays an up-front fee for the bond. According to the article, this is rarely used, and the burden of costs goes directly to the defendant, or taxpayers, even if the injunction is overturned in appeal. We'll see how this is applied in the future, but it's definitely necessary to force activist judges to follow procedures and give pause to those so willing to use the justice system at the cost of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment