The Power of Preliminary Injunctions in Immigration Litigation—And the Fight Over Access to Justice

In the fast-moving landscape of immigration policy, few tools have proven more powerful—and more necessary—than the preliminary injunction. For countless individuals and immigrant communities, these court orders have served as a shield against unlawful enforcement actions, rushed policy rollouts, and systemic harms inflicted without due process.

A preliminary injunction is a form of emergency relief that stops the government from taking action while a case is being decided. In the immigration context, this often means freezing a regulation, halting a deportation, or preserving status while a legal challenge plays out. Courts grant such relief only when plaintiffs meet a high bar—demonstrating likelihood of success, risk of irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities favors the injunction.

Under the Trump administration, preliminary injunctions were a lifeline in the face of rapid and aggressive rule changes. Attorneys and legal organizations across the country used them to stop unlawful bans, enforcement priorities, and due process violations. But as litigation increased, the administration responded not only by appealing injunctions—but by demanding money.

In several key cases, the Department of Justice began arguing that plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions should be required to post bond or financial security—a discretionary step in federal civil litigation that is rarely enforced against nonprofit plaintiffs or individuals asserting constitutional rights. This tactic, though framed as standard civil procedure, had the clear effect of chilling public interest litigation. The idea that an immigrant rights organization—or worse, an indigent immigrant plaintiff—should pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to pause government action, strained the foundations of equitable access to justice.

This trend raised alarm bells for immigrant advocates. Courts were suddenly weighing whether the cost of legal redress should be borne not only in legal fees and emotional tolls, but in actual dollars paid to the very government being challenged. In some cases, plaintiffs were forced to divert scarce resources toward litigation security, undermining their ability to serve communities on the ground.

While some courts rejected these demands, others signaled openness—especially in politically contentious or high-profile cases. The message was clear: even temporary protection may now carry a price.

As we continue to face rapidly shifting immigration policies—both under future administrations and ongoing litigation—the battle over preliminary injunctions will remain at the heart of immigrant legal defense. Advocates must continue to press for fair access to the courts, defend the principle that constitutional rights should not depend on a plaintiff’s wallet, and use every legal tool available to stand against unjust policy. The stakes are simply too high.