Judicial Crossfire: House Moves to Muzzle Nationwide Court Orders
A controversial bill aims to curb federal judges' power to halt executive actions across the U.S.—but is it a constitutional safeguard or a threat to checks and balances?
By R.L. Crossan
On April 9, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the "No Rogue Rulings Act" with a 219-213 vote. This legislation seeks to restrict federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions—court orders that halt the enforcement of federal policies across the entire country. The bill mandates that such injunctions should only apply to the specific parties involved in a case, except in certain situations, such as cases brought by multiple states.
Reasons for the Legislation
Proponents of the bill, primarily Republicans, argue that nationwide injunctions have been increasingly used by federal judges to block executive actions, particularly those of the Trump administration. They contend that this trend represents judicial overreach, allowing individual judges to wield excessive power over national policy. Representative Darrell Issa, the bill's sponsor, stated that these injunctions empower "unelected judges to dictate national policy and thwart the Constitution."
The frequency of such injunctions has risen notably in recent years. The Congressional Research Service reported 86 nationwide injunctions during Trump's first term and 17 in the early months of his second term. Congress.gov | Library of Congress+12Harvard Law Review+12AP News+12Wikipedia+2AP News+2AP News+2
Constitutional Considerations and Checks and Balances
Critics, mainly Democrats, argue that limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions could undermine the judiciary's role as a check on the executive branch, potentially upsetting the balance of power among the three government branches. They assert that these injunctions are essential tools for courts to prevent potentially unconstitutional actions from affecting individuals nationwide. Representative Jamie Raskin emphasized that courts have been crucial in overturning unlawful executive actions.
Pros and Cons
Pros:
Prevents Judicial Overreach: Supporters believe the bill curtails the ability of individual judges to make sweeping decisions that affect national policy, preserving the intended balance of power.
Reduces Forum Shopping: By limiting the scope of injunctions, the legislation aims to discourage plaintiffs from seeking out specific courts perceived to be more favorable to their cases.
Cons:
Limits Judicial Oversight: Opponents argue that restricting nationwide injunctions hampers the judiciary's ability to check potentially unconstitutional executive actions, thereby weakening the system of checks and balances.
Inconsistent Enforcement: Without nationwide injunctions, federal policies could be enforced differently across various jurisdictions, leading to legal inconsistencies and confusion.
Next Steps for the Legislation
The bill now advances to the Senate, where its future is uncertain. Given the need for a 60-vote majority to overcome a filibuster, and considering Democratic opposition, the legislation faces significant hurdles. Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a comparable bill, but it is unlikely to progress without bipartisan support.
In parallel, other Republican efforts include proposals to prevent the use of federal funds to enforce broad injunctions, reflecting a broader strategy to limit judicial interventions perceived as overreach.