[House Report 119-40]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { REPORT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEShr
1st Session } { 119-40
======================================================================
NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025
_______
March 25, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1526]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to
limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive
relief, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that
the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 7
Committee Consideration.......................................... 7
Committee Votes.................................................. 7
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 9
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 9
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 9
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 9
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 9
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 10
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 10
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 10
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 10
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 10
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 10
Dissenting Views................................................. 11
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all that follows after the enacting clause, and
insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025'' as the
``NORRA of 2025''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS TO
PROVIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief
``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order
providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order
that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case
before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive
relief from such district court and non-parties represented by such a
party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
``(b) If a case is brought by two or more States located in different
circuits challenging an action by the executive branch, that case shall
be referred to a three-judge panel selected pursuant to section 2284,
except that the selection of judges shall be random, and not by the
chief judge of the circuit. The three-judge panel may issue an
injunction that would otherwise be prohibited under subsection (a), and
shall consider the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable harm to
non-parties, and the preservation of the constitutional separation of
powers in determining whether to issue such an order.
``(c) An appeal of an order granting or denying injunctive relief
pursuant to subsection (b) may lie to the circuit embracing the
district or to the Supreme Court, at the preference of the party.''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for such chapter is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief.''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, or NORRA, introduced
by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), would prohibit United States
district courts from issuing any orders providing for
injunctive relief that are broader in scope than restricting
the actions of a party before the court with respect to the
party seeking injunctive relief. The bill would allow a
district court to issue a nationwide injunction in a case in
which two separate states from two separate judicial circuits
are parties--making clear the nationwide nature of the dispute.
In such a case, the bill provides for the establishment of a
panel of three randomly chosen judges to determine whether to
issue a nationwide injunction. Such injunctions may be appealed
directly to the Supreme Court.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Since President Donald Trump's second term began in January
2025, federal district courts have issued a series of
nationwide injunctions that have halted numerous executive
orders, affecting a wide array of policy areas including
immigration, federal spending, regulatory reforms, and social
policy.\1\ These court orders, each of which purport to enjoin
federal actions throughout the United States, have emerged from
litigation challenging the Trump Administration's agenda and
role in setting Executive Branch policy, and raise substantial
questions about the federal judiciary's role in national
policymaking.\2\ These injunctions, which are part of more than
100 lawsuits against President Trump's approximately seventy-
five executive orders issued as of March 24, 2025,\3\ extend
well beyond the immediate litigants in their respective cases
and ultimately affect national policy execution.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration
Actions, Just Security (updated Feb. 27, 2025), https://
www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-
administration/ [hereinafter ``Litigation Tracker'']; see also Alex
Lemonides, Tracking the Lawsuits Against Trump's Agenda, N.Y. Times
(Feb. 28, 2025).
\2\Chapter Four District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions, 137
Harv. L. Rev. 1701, 1707-13 (2024) [hereinafter ``Nationwide
Injunctions'']; see generally Joanna R. Lampe, Cong. Research Serv.,
LSB10664, Nationwide Injunctions: Recent Legal Developments 3-4 (2021)
[hereinafter ``Developments''].
\3\2025 Donald J. Trump Executive Orders, Fed. Reg. (last accessed
Feb. 28, 2025), https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/
executive-orders/donald-trump/2025; see Nigel Chiwaya, Tracking Trump's
executive orders, NBC News (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.nbcnews.com/
data-graphics/tracking-trumps-executive-orders-rcna189571; Trump
Administration Litigation Tracker, Lawfare, https://
www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trumps-first-100-days/tracking-
trump-administration-litigation (last accessed Mar. 24, 2025).
\4\See Nationwide Injunctions, supra note 2, at 1712.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Challenging Immigration Executive Orders
President Trump's executive orders on immigration policies
have been a primary target of lawsuits seeking nationwide
injunctive relief.\5\ On February 5, 2025, U.S. District Judge
Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland issued a
nationwide preliminary injunction against Executive Order
14160, which sought to end birthright citizenship for children
born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas.\6\
In her order, Judge Boardman, in response to lawsuits from
immigrant families and advocacy groups, stated that the terms
of the executive order were in conflict with the 14th
Amendment.\7\ Additionally, on February 6, 2025, U.S. District
Judge John Coughenour in the Western District of Washington
issued another nationwide injunction against the birthright
citizenship order, which highlighted purported constitutional
concerns with the executive order.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See Litigation Tracker, supra note 1.
\6\Order, Casa, Inc., et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 8:25-CV-00201-
DLB (Feb. 5, 2025).
\7\Id.
\8\Order, State of Washington, et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 2:25-
CV-00127-JCC (Jan. 23, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, on February 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jamal
N. Whitehead, also of the Western District of Washington,
issued a preliminary injunction that blocks the implementation
of Executive Order 14163, which sought to suspend the admission
of refugees into the country under the U.S. Refugee Admissions
Program (USRAP).\9\ Judge Whitehead, who was appointed by
President Joe Biden, stated that it appeared ``likely that
[President Trump] exceeded [his] lawful authority by suspending
[USRAP,]'' which was established by Congress in 1980.\10\ Judge
Whitehead further stated that President Trump's executive
orders was an ``effective nullification of congressional
will[.]''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Mattathias Schwartz, Judge Blocks Trump Executive Order to
Suspend Refugee Program, N.Y. Times (Feb. 25, 2025); Executive Order
14163 (2025).
\10\Schwartz, supra note 9.
\11\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Challenging Executive Orders Regarding Federal Resources
Recently, several individuals and left-wing groups have
filed lawsuits challenging the establishment and actions of the
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with the plaintiffs
alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). These cases
involve various organizations and government entities
contesting DOGE's access to government records, its influence
on federal agencies, and its effect on employees, with multiple
motions for temporary restraining orders and injunctions under
consideration.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See Litigation Tracker, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 25, 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, blocked a January
27, 2025, memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) freezing certain federal grants and loans.\13\ Intended
to pause federal disbursements while they were examined to
ensure compliance with the Trump Administration's priorities,
the directive was contested by an array of nonprofits and
businesses.\14\ Additionally, on February 21, 2025, Judge Adam
B. Abelson of the District of Maryland, who was appointed by
President Biden, issued a nationwide injunction against parts
of Executive Order 14151, establishing DOGE.\15\ In that case,
groups of retirees and unions challenged the executive order's
agency restructuring plans, leading to a broad suspension of
its implementation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Memorandum Opinion, Nat'l Council of Nonprofits, et al., v.
Office of Mgmt. & Budget, et al., No. 1:25-CV-00239-LLA (Feb. 25,
2025).
\14\Id.
\15\Memorandum Opinion, Nat'l Ass'n of Diversity Officers in Higher
Ed., Inc., et al. v. Trump, et al., No. 1:25-CV-00333-ABA (Feb. 21,
2025).
\16\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 28, 2025, a coalition of 22 states, along with
the District of Columbia, brought suit against President Trump
and, among other agencies, OMB and the Treasury Department,
alleging that President Trump's executive order directing all
executive agencies to ``pause all activities related to
obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance,
and other relevant agency activities that [include] financial
assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI,
woke gender ideology, and the green new deal'' is
unconstitutional and violates the APA.\17\ On January 31, 2025,
Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the District of Rhode Island,
who was appointed by President Obama, issued a temporary
restraining order barring the enforcement of the OMB
directive.\18\ On February 10, 2025, Judge McConnell granted
Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the restraining order and stated
that the White House failed to comply with the court's
order.\19\ Further, on February 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit denied defendants' request for an
administrative stay pending resolution of their motion for a
stay pending appeal, but did not rule on whether to issue a
stay pending appeal,\20\ and on February 12, 2025, Judge
McConnell denied defendants' motion to stay the temporary
restraining order and enforcement order pending appeal.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Complaint, State of New York, et al., v. Trump, et al.,
No.1:25-CV-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 28, 2025).
\18\Temporary Restraining Order, State of New York, et al., v.
Trump, et al., No.1:25-CV-00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Jan. 31, 2025).
\19\Order, State of New York, et al., v. Trump, et al., No.1:25-CV-
00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Feb. 10, 2025).
\20\See Judgment, State of New York, et al., v. Trump, et al., No.
25-1128 (1st Cir. Feb. 13, 2025).
\21\Order, State of New York, et al., v. Trump, et al., No.1:25-CV-
00039-JJM-PAS (D.R.I. Feb. 12, 2025). On February 13, 2025, defendants
moved to voluntarily dismiss their appeal challenging the temporary
restraining order and enforcement order, which the First Circuit so-
ordered the same day. Judgment, State of New York, et al., v. Trump, et
al., No. 25-1128 (1st Cir. Feb. 13, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Challenging Executive Orders Regarding Social Policy
Initiatives
President Trump's regulatory and social policy initiatives
have encountered similar obstruction. For example, on February
14, 2025, Judge Brendan Hurson of the District of Maryland, who
was appointed by President Biden, issued a nationwide
preliminary injunction blocking President Trump's executive
order aimed at protecting children from chemical and surgical
mutilation.\22\ According to the Heritage Foundation, Judge
Hurson's order ``ignore[d] a correct application of guiding law
that gives the president the authority to halt further
governmental federal funding'' of such treatments.\23\
Additionally, on February 14, 2025, following litigation from
civil rights organizations questioning its alignment with
federal law, Judge Lauren King of the Western District of
Washington issued another nationwide preliminary injunction
halting the same executive order.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\Memorandum Opinion, PFLAG, Inc., et al., v. Trump, et al., No.
8:25-CV-00337-BAH (Feb. 14, 2025).
\23\Sarah Parshall Perry, Follow the Law, Heritage Found. (Feb. 27,
2025), https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/follow-the-law.
\24\Order, State of Washington, et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 2:25-
CV-00244-LK (Feb. 14, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Challenging Removal of Federal Employees
President Trump's efforts to reduce federal employee
headcounts have received similar attention from some activist
judges. For example, on March 13, 2025, Judge William Alsup of
the Northern District of California, who was appointed by
President Clinton, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction
through an oral order from the bench requiring President Trump
to reinstate all probationary employees who were fired from the
Departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy,
Interior and Treasury.\25\ Judge Alsup indicated he may extend
the order to cover other agencies at a later time.\26\ Judge
Alsup stated that ``[t]he court finds that Office of Personnel
Management did direct all agencies to terminate probationary
employees with the exception of mission critical employees,''
and called the President's efforts a ``sham.''\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Devan Cole, Judge orders Trump administration to reinstate
thousands of fired employees at VA, Defense Department and other
agencies, CNN (Mar. 13, 2025).
\26\Id.
\27\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Necessity for NORRA and Legislative Reform
NORRA will amend Chapter 85 of Title 28, United States
Code, to restrict the ability of federal district courts to
provide injunctive relief to only the parties directly involved
in a case. This legislation responds to concerns that
nationwide injunctions disrupt the constitutional separation of
powers, impede lawful administrative activities, and unduly
impede the authority of elected officials to determine
questions of policy,\28\ as demonstrated by recent judicial
actions against President Trump's executive orders.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\See Joanna R. Lampe, Cong. Research Serv., R46902, Nationwide
Injunctions: Law, History, and Proposals for Reform 10-15 (2021)
[hereinafter ``Proposals''].
\29\See Litigation Tracker, supra note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scope of nationwide injunctions highlights the
necessity for reform. Nationwide injunctions frequently extend
far beyond the immediate parties in a lawsuit, affecting entire
populations and jurisdictions not involved in the original
dispute.\30\ This expansive reach often results from strategic
filings in districts chosen for their likelihood to grant
favorable outcomes, a practice of forum and judge shopping that
concentrates significant policymaking power in individual,
ideologically reliable judges.\31\ Such a trend shifts the
policymaking power away from the legislative and executive
branches, raising fundamental questions about the judiciary's
role in our constitutional system.\32\ This trend is also in
conflict with former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell's
admonition that judges should only ``decide the case before the
court.''\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Proposals, supra note 28, at 12.
\31\Developments, supra note 2, at 4.
\32\See id.
\33\Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Stare Decisis and Judicial Restraint, 47
Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 281, 288 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions
also creates substantial challenges for effective
governance.\34\ When multiple district courts issue injunctions
on the same issue, the potential for conflicting rulings
fosters legal uncertainty, complicating the uniform application
of federal policy.\35\ Furthermore, the immediate nationwide
enforcement of these orders delays resolution by higher courts,
stalling the implementation of executive and legislative
initiatives and leaving critical policies in limbo.\36\ NORRA
seeks to restore district courts to their traditional function
of resolving specific disputes between parties appearing before
them, ensuring that broader policy determinations remain the
responsibility of the democratically elected branches of
government, i.e., Congress and the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\Nationwide Injunctions, supra note 2, at 1724.
\35\See id.
\36\Developments, supra note 2, at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents may argue that restricting nationwide injunctions
limits the judiciary's ability to serve as a check on executive
actions perceived as overreaching or harmful.\37\ However,
NORRA would serve to enhance democratic accountability by
ensuring that significant policy decisions align with the
authority of the legislative and executive branches, which are
directly accountable to the electorate, rather than resting on
the unilateral rulings of individual judges. With the current
administration facing an unprecedented volume of litigation
challenging its executive actions, NORRA presents a critical
opportunity to reinforce constitutional principles, promote
consistency within the judicial system, and support the
effective execution of federal governance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Proposals, supra note 28, at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, as modified by Rep. Derek Schmidt's amendment to
NORRA, nationwide injunctions would still be available where
the facts of the case make clear the nationwide nature of the
dispute. To establish that a matter in fact has nationwide
implications, the amendment focuses on those cases where at
least two separate states in different federal judicial
circuits are parties. In such situations, a panel of three
randomly chosen judges would be established to determine
whether to issue a nationwide injunction. The historical basis
for requiring three judge panels is well established in federal
law under 28 U.S.C. 2284, which explicitly provides that ``[a]
district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise
required by Act of Congress.'' Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284, when
a district court judge receives a request for a three-judge
panel, the chief judge of the relevant circuit is tasked with
selecting the two additional judges who will join the district
court judge who received the request. To prevent gamesmanship
and forum shopping, all three judges are selected randomly
under the procedure set forth in Rep. Schmidt's amendment.
Further, any injunctions issued by the panel may be appealed
directly to the Supreme Court.
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearings were used to develop H.R. 1526:
``Justice Delayed: The Crisis of Undermanned Federal Courts'' a
hearing held on February 25, 2025, before the Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
Internet of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the following witnesses:
The Honorable Timothy Tymkovich, Circuit
Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.
The hearing addressed, among other topics, injunctive
relief in federal courts and the lack of clear standards for
the issuance of nationwide injunctions.
Committee Consideration
On March 5, 2025, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 1526, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of
14-9, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 1526:
1. Vote on favorably reporting H.R. 1526, as
amended--passed 14 ayes to 9 nays.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has
requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such
estimate and statement to be printed in the Congressional
Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such estimate
to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by
the Committee.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 1526 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.R. 1526 would limit when United States
district courts may issue an order providing for injunctive
relief that is broader in scope than restricting the actions of
a party before the court with respect to the party seeking
injunctive relief.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 1526
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House Rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the ``No
Rogue Rulings Act of 2025.''
Section 2. Limitation on Authority of United States
District Courts to Provide Injunctive Relief. This section
amends Chapter 85 of title 28 of the United States Code to
limit the ability of a United States district court to issue an
order that provides for injunctive relief, except for such
orders that are applicable only to limit the actions of a party
to the case with respect to the party who sought the injunctive
relief.
This section also would permit a district court to issue a
nationwide injunction where at least two state attorneys
general from different judicial districts are plaintiffs and
provides that such a case must be heard by a three-judge panel.
In such a case, the court must consider certain enumerated
factors, and the parties may appeal the granting or denial of
the nationwide injunction to the Supreme Court.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italics and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART IV--JURISDICTION AND VENUE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 85--DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION
Sec.
1330. Actions against foreign states.
* * * * * * *
1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no United States district court shall
issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the
case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the
actions of a party to the case before such district court with
respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such
district court and non-parties represented by such a party
acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b) If a case is brought by two or more States located in
different circuits challenging an action by the executive
branch, that case shall be referred to a three-judge panel
selected pursuant to section 2284, except that the selection of
judges shall be random, and not by the chief judge of the
circuit. The three-judge panel may issue an injunction that
would otherwise be prohibited under subsection (a), and shall
consider the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable harm
to non-parties, and the preservation of the constitutional
separation of powers in determining whether to issue such an
order.
(c) An appeal of an order granting or denying injunctive
relief pursuant to subsection (b) may lie to the circuit
embracing the district or to the Supreme Court, at the
preference of the party.
* * * * * * *
Dissenting Views
H.R. 1526, the ``No Rogue Rulings Act,'' would prohibit any
federal district court from issuing injunctive relief that
extends beyond the parties to a case. This bill would prevent
federal district courts from imposing universal injunctive
relief, or ``nationwide injunctions,'' even when that court is
tasked with ruling on the validity of certain federal policies
with nationwide effects.
District courts across the country have universally
enjoined President Trump's most damaging executive actions,
from his attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship and
freezing congressionally appropriated funding to the mass
firing of civil servants. Each of these cases have the
potential to cause very real and serious harm to Americans
across the country. They demonstrate how nationwide injunctions
play an essential role as a check on the political branches and
can serve an important purpose that, when weighed properly by a
court, outweighs their costs.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065-1119 at 1070 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation would ban the use of nationwide
injunctions in district courts across the country. Without this
form of universal injunctive relief, federal district courts
would be powerless to protect thousands, sometimes millions, of
Americans from the illegal and unconstitutional polices of the
Trump Administration. For these reasons and others discussed
below, I strongly oppose H.R. 1526 and respectfully dissent
from the Committee's views on this legislation.
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION
An injunction is a form of equitable relief that allows a
court to ```control a party's conduct'--either by prohibiting
or requiring action by a party.''\2\ Injunctions are intended
to provide strong, coercive relief and as such, ``courts aim to
issue injunctions that are `no more burdensome to the defendant
than necessary to provide complete relief' to the parties
before the court.''\3\ Depending on what stage the parties are
at in the litigation, an injunction can take the form of a
temporary restraining order (TRO), a preliminary injunction, or
a permanent injunction.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions, 137 Harv. L. Rev.
1701 (Apr. 2024) at 1703; HIAS, Inc. v. Trump, 985 F.3d 309, 326 (4th
Cir. 2021) (quoting Roe v. Dep't of Def., 947 F.3d 207, 231 (4th Cir.
2020)).
\3\District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions, 137 Harv. L. Rev.
1701 (Apr. 2024) at 1703.
\4\District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions, 137 Harv. L. Rev.
1701 (Apr. 2024) at 1703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injunctions can also take the form of a ``nationwide
injunction,'' which is a universal form of equitable relief
that ``bars the defendant from acting against anyone--not just
the plaintiffs in the case.''\5\ There are many reasons that a
court might find it necessary to issue an injunction that
protects persons not before the court, depending upon the facts
of the case. Sometimes, courts determine it is not feasible, as
a practical matter, to tailor relief narrowly to reach only the
plaintiff; in other cases, nothing less than a nationwide
injunction will fully protect the rights of the parties to the
case.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Steve Vladeck, Justice Gorsuch and ``Nationwide Injunctions,''
ONE FIRST (Apr. 22, 2024), https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/77-justice-
gorsuch-and-nationwide.
\6\Joanna R. Lampe, Nationwide Injunctions: Recent Legal
Developments, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (Dec. 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many experts agree that Article III of the Constitution
confers a singular ``judicial power'' to decide ``cases in law
and equity'' to the courts, and that judicial power includes
the power to issue injunctions that apply to nonparties,
especially in cases where they are ``crafted in terms of
providing complete relief to the plaintiff.''\7\ For example,
in a school desegregation case, the only way to alleviate the
plaintiff's injury is to require the defendant to allow all
nonwhite students in the jurisdiction to attend the school.\8\
This relief would be a form of a ``nationwide injunction''
because it applies to not just the party in the case, but all
similarly situated persons. An order requiring the defendant to
admit only the plaintiff would not address the injury at issue.
Yet if enacted, this legislation would demand the latter
result, which would be ineffective to redress the injury; only
nationwide relief in that context can provide proper and
complete relief to the plaintiff.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065-1119 at 1082 (2018); U.S. Const. art. III,
Sec. Sec. 1 and 2; Mila Sahoni, Rule by District Judge: The Challenges
of Universal Injunctions, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE (Feb. 25, 2020).
\8\Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065-1119 at 1082 (2018).
\9\Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065-1119 at 1082 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide injunctions play an important role in protecting
both the independence of our judiciary and our system of checks
and balances. This universal form of injunctive relief is
sometimes the only ``means to provide plaintiffs with complete
relief, or to prevent harm to thousands of individuals who
cannot quickly bring their own cases before the courts,''
making them a useful tool to provide better access to justice
for all Americans.\10\ Nationwide injunctions can also provide
continuity among varying jurisdictions, avoid repetitive
litigation on identical questions of law, and prevent piecemeal
implementation of potentially harmful executive actions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065-1119 at 1065 (2018).
\11\U.S. Const. art. III, Sec. Sec. 1 and 2; Mila Sahoni, Rule by
District Judge: The Challenges of Universal Injunctions, SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE (Feb. 25, 2020); Amanda Frost, In Defense of
Nationwide Injunctions, 93 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065-1119 at
1065 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ability to issue universal forms of injunctive relief,
like nationwide injunctions, allows federal courts to play
their essential role as a check on the political branches and
nothing in the Constitution's text bars federal courts from
issuing a remedy that extends beyond the parties to the case.
It is my strong belief that stripping federal district courts
of this equitable remedy that they have used for over a century
would be not only disruptive but would also deprive the
judiciary of an essential remedy to check the executive
branch.\12\ Legislation addressing such a complex and
fundamentally important subject should not be as absolute nor
rushed, particularly when enactment is being sought under the
mistaken belief that these judicial orders are the usurpation
of the executive branch by overreaching federal judges, as the
title of this bill suggests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Amanda Frost, In Defense of Nationwide Injunctions, 93 NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 1065-1119 at 1080 (2018); Mila Sahoni, Rule by
District Judge: The Challenges of Universal Injunctions, SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE (Feb. 25, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The enactment of such drastic legislation, particularly
now, when the current administration has taken an active and
detrimental role in enacting laws and implementing policies
with severe and damaging nationwide effects, would be unwise.
This legislation is simply an attempt to strip the judiciary of
a constitutionally essential tool that it is effectively
wielding against the Trump Administration.
II. CONCERNS WITH H.R. 1526
Since taking office, President Trump has sought to expand
the powers of the executive branch. In response, federal courts
have repeatedly placed temporary holds on some of those
actions. These preliminary injunctions help the courts avoid--
or at least minimize--the harm done by potentially
unconstitutional or unlawful acts, not just to the plaintiffs,
but often to hundreds, thousands, and even millions of
Americans similarly situated to the litigants.
Injunctive relief is one of the ways courts perform their
``check'' in the system of ``checks and balances.'' The cases
against the Trump Administration are instructive for how
injunctive relief can be used to rein in an overreaching
executive trying to unconstitutionally expand his presidential
powers.
H.R. 1526 would allow injunctions in district court only to
the extent that they apply to parties to the case. When an
individual requests the court grant injunctive relief, the
judge could order the administration to act, but only with
respect to the movant--they could never expand the order to
affect individuals in the same class or with the same injury as
the movant.
If this legislation were enacted, nationwide injunctions
would thus be prohibited, and the federal courts would be
powerless to exercise this essential tool to protect the
nonparties from the potentially illegal or unconstitutional
Trump Administration polices, in effect removing a powerful
check of the judicial branch against the executive.
For all these reasons, I dissent, and I urge all Members to
oppose this legislation.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member.
[all]