Activist judges are at war against our republic and the rule of law. I was sitting with Texas leaders tonight at dinner, and asked one of the top legal minds on Team America how we can fight back against this destructive nonsense.

Here's how US appellate courts could IMMEDIATELY HALT many recent injunctions:

Rule 65(c) allows courts to issue a preliminary injunction only if the movant gives security. A judge might wave security for "public interest" concerns - as these activists have done - but appellate courts who see the potential damages from this activism as serious could disagree, and nullify recent injunctions against the Trump Administration.

Under this rule, major injunctions against the US Government that could cause serious damage force litigants - such as the ACLU - to put up multi-billion dollar bonds, based on the potential damages these insane injunctions are causing if they end up being incorrect in litigation. And let's be honest, billions are at stake in many of these cases!

Of course, a radical judge might see no damage in just turning off everything this administration tries to do, but appellate courts may disagree and halt these injunctions. Which one will have the courage to step up?

Appellate court judges like Randolph, Katsas or many others could take IMMEDIATE action and kill some of these inappropriate injunctions for lacking security.