The White House issued a memo Thursday urging various agency heads to begin applying regular use of a rule that would make those who want to sue the government in an emergency lawsuit pay up front.

The memo was released just a day after a federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump’s bid to freeze federal grants sidestepped Congress — and after a raft of lawsuits was filed against the Trump administration during its first weeks back in power.

The rule, known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), is one that is already on the books, though it is rarely enforced. It gives courts the power to issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the person suing for that order pays “security” up front.

The Trump memo urged government lawyers to ask judges to invoke this rule, though of course the judges could refuse. The judges are also responsible for setting the security amount — so they could set it at $0, or it could be much higher.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday on whether regular enforcement of this rule may create a chilling effect for parties who have limited funds to sue.

Lisa Gilbert, president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said in a statement Thursday: “The administration’s memorandum is an attempt to scare people away from enforcing their rights through the court system, as Donald Trump and Elon Musk work to dismantle the federal government. People should not be deterred from challenging the administration’s unlawful lawlessness.”

According to the White House memo, which highlights an intent to stop “judicial overreach and frivolous lawsuits,” the procedural rule falls in line with a “demand that parties seeking injunctions against the federal government must cover the costs and damages incurred if the government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”

Many people have sued the administration since Trump took office, seeking injunctions or temporary restraining orders meant to temper, slow or altogether stop the president’s barrage of executive orders and memorandums currently testing the limits of executive power.

Whether it’s humanitarian groups trying to unlock frozen aid, government workers fired by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, immigrants seeking to stop forced deportation to Guantánamo Bay, or transgender members of the U.S. military challenging the administration’s ban on their service, the tide of litigation has been unceasing.

So far, the administration has already been dealt one key defeat by the Supreme Court.

Thursday’s memo urging renewed enforcement of the procedural rule came just days after the high court ruled 5-4 that the administration must comply with a lower court’s order demanding the government release the funds it froze at the U.S. Agency for International Development more than a month ago.

In fact, just a few hours before the White House published its memo Thursday, the lower court judge tasked with the USAID case had ruled that the nearly $2 billion in aid and debt that has been frozen must start being paid out by Monday.

“Activist groups file meritless suits for fundraising and political gain, facing no consequences when they lose, while taxpayers bear the costs and delays,” the White House memo claims, adding that the Justice Department is “forced to divert resources from public safety to fight the frivolous cases, weakening effective governance.”

The memo on Thursday also came as Trump signed an executive order targeting Perkins Coie, a law firm that worked with prominent Democrats in the 2016 election. The order, which appeared retaliatory, stripped the law firm of its government security clearances and contracts and restricted the firm’s access to government buildings. Trump did the same with the law firm Covington & Burling last month. That firm did pro bono work for former special counsel Jack Smith.