[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6096890,"mediaKeyId","2830336-96ce7dfa3e5acea748e94c016f3bdb58","parentId",2830336,"title","House Rules hearing exposes sharp partisan split over bill to limit nationwide injunctions","audioSeconds",3329,"startMs",423000,"endMs",3752000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2830336-96ce7dfa3e5acea748e94c016f3bdb58&start=423&end=3752","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2830336-96ce7dfa3e5acea748e94c016f3bdb58/thumbnail_423000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6096890/House-Rules-hearing-exposes-sharp-partisan-split-over-bill-to-limit-nationwide-injunctions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6096890-29798f604a986e64b30254d878de5a18/orig.mp4?Expires=1770967909&Signature=ScRmz23D53kkmlaWiV7dZEA8VMNU3Yb6cbfS4jtaqP~OZ17O4oLH8xZVq~JofpeWsGumFR-XYeTM1nhrK8r0HDvLRPlUc9Ui2bz9IyKxnk1Z4k-8JgBW~1RBbn33W3dvQlOZGYF48D0BsNdQfc9JOk03d3ox2gGgr0JJ-oddlW8YfHMzNgv~63i79y7PlwXJ~SIE5ITnqcUmqXXjPyKyjWlHmaynXZbCBIfUVt82SKEqsh8WANauY7bcWoxsZlIw1LsacegaIWQ-kpuLq5ADzNZszYtYq~xBKoVGp94bJ6xgNFS2Maj4rC3mfyZQODav9014fdfDIO~Fis1exwyQ0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on Rules","date","2025-03-31T00:00:00Z","article","The House Rules Committee heard detailed debate over the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 during a hearing that drew witnesses from the Judiciary Committee and extended exchanges among members on both sides of the aisle.

Proponents, including Representative Darrell Issa, said the bill would reinstate a roughly two-century practice of limiting district-court injunctions to the parties before the court and would curb what they called forum shopping and unilateral nationwide orders by single judges. Opponents — including Representative Jamie Raskin and Representative James McGovern — warned the bill would force millions of people to file individual suits to obtain relief and would create untenable burdens on the federal judiciary and on litigants seeking rapid redress.

Supporters told the committee that the solicitor general and other legal authorities have questioned the asymmetry created when a single district judge can issue a nationwide injunction that halts a federal program, citing examples in which temporary relief affected major administrative actions. Representative Issa argued the bill preserves a path for broader relief — for example, when multiple plaintiffs or multiple states are parties — while returning district courts to what he called their historical remit.

Ranking Member Raskin and other Democrats countered that nationwide injunctions are used sparingly and serve as a necessary tool when a lower-court order would otherwise leave large groups of people without timely protection. Raskin and other witnesses described the procedural consequences of forcing every affected person to file their own suit and said the Supreme Court and courts of appeals are the constitutional mechanisms for resolving conflicting district-court rulings.

The hearing also featured an extended and contentious exchange about inflammatory public messaging directed at judges, including “wanted” posters and calls for impeachment. Lawmakers on both sides condemned threats and harassment of judges, while some members pushed for stronger congressional statements and security measures for the judiciary.

No vote or formal committee action on the bill was recorded at the hearing; witnesses’ prepared statements were entered into the record, and the discussion will move forward as the bill proceeds through committee processes.

The exchanges reflected legal and policy fault lines about judicial remedies, separation of powers and how best to balance judicial review with administrative continuity.

Looking ahead, committee members from both parties said they expect more hearings and legal analyses before any final floor consideration. The Rules Committee hearing served chiefly to surface constitutional arguments, procedural mechanics and the political stakes of narrowing the scope of district-court injunctions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Rules Committee Hearing H.R. 22, 1526, S.J. Res. 28, 18","oneSentenceSummary","The House Rules Committee heard sharply divided testimony on a bill to limit district courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions, with Republicans urging a return to historical practice and Democrats warning the proposal would deny timely relief to many people.","taxTitle","Rules: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1984,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6096880,"House Rules hears Financial Services panel on two CRA resolutions targeting CFPB rules on overdraft fees and payment apps",1648,12835000,14483000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2830336-96ce7dfa3e5acea748e94c016f3bdb58&start=12835&end=14483","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2830336-96ce7dfa3e5acea748e94c016f3bdb58/thumbnail_12835000.jpg","/articles/6096880/House-Rules-hears-Financial-Services-panel-on-two-CRA-resolutions-targeting-CFPB-rules-on-overdraft-fees-and-payment-apps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6096880-b36ceb5c48df1cb356b429fc99267cf0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770967909&Signature=cmvEJVIVPb9MGpIF91AjTXrt3qLLMK5C7BP1ezRRa9U10fQ9ilxTDMktruvlsQlLZJVa5PJy8CfmYb8nrXB4RP0~-XZ0-Mn7bZ3OFPurw-sZrB~KOWNaa9zCBHRvzqUtBZSaX-wOzz03rqZEjhz81VtxOKlQi1z~cFG8PGwsbsHd7cWB~LuRTJC7g2k9VJSZVPZYbx4xmKRYNgk8bqST2zXCM2A027OvUEVWfo2mWn2l3uCMDkaI-OL8aUX2CBK4EXW7M4~WOJKxKWspGbJjoeQmCPvH0OP3hiZavb9LQ~F0wgfis~uVqfmvKV0OovNjP31e4EN0y1q7PmtYWnsl~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Rules Committee heard testimony from the Financial Services Committee on two Congressional Review Act resolutions that would overturn Consumer Financial Protection Bureau actions.

Representative Andy Barr testified in support of S.J. Res. 18 — a resolution to disapprove the CFPB’s final rule on overdraft services — and S.J. Res. 28 — a resolution to disapprove the bureau’s larger‑participant supervision rule for certain digital consumer payment applications. Barr and other GOP witnesses described the CFPB’s rules as rushed, overly broad and likely to reduce consumer access to short-term liquidity and to stifle innovation in digital payments.

Barr said CFPB treatment of overdraft as a form of credit subject to Truth in Lending Act requirements would impose underwriting and disclosure regimes inappropriate for short-term overdraft services and could effectively remove overdraft from many community banks’ product offerings. He argued that competition, not prescriptive federal caps, achieves better consumer outcomes and noted low complaint volumes for payment apps in CFPB data.

Representative Maxine Waters, the panel’s ranking member, defended the CFPB rules as pro‑consumer. Waters said the overdraft rule does not ban overdraft services but establishes a $5 safe harbor (with exceptions when higher fees can be justified) for the largest institutions and exempts nearly all community banks and credit unions. She also said supervision of large payment-app providers is an extension of the bureau’s statutory authority to examine participants that present potential systemic consumer risk.

Committee members pressed witnesses on likely market effects, complaint volumes and whether community banks and credit unions would be insulated by the CFPB’s exemptions. Republicans said smaller institutions would nonetheless be forced to lower fees to compete; Democrats said the rules protect consumers and that claims of large-scale harm were not supported by the bureau’s targeted approach.

No committee vote on either CRA resolution was recorded at the hearing. Witnesses’ prepared statements were added to the record and committee members indicated they would press further on technical and statutory points in follow-up actions.","A Financial Services panel testified before the Rules Committee on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, Congressional Review Act measures that would nullify recent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rules on overdraft charges and supervision of large payment apps. Republicans framed the rules as regulatory overreach that will raise costs and limit",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6096885,"Rules Committee debates SAVE Act; supporters cite election integrity, opponents warn of voter burdens",12352,381000,12733000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2830336-96ce7dfa3e5acea748e94c016f3bdb58&start=381&end=12733","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2830336-96ce7dfa3e5acea748e94c016f3bdb58/thumbnail_381000.jpg","/articles/6096885/Rules-Committee-debates-SAVE-Act-supporters-cite-election-integrity-opponents-warn-of-voter-burdens","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6096885-c58c2edae335972be6d93dcdc356a46f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770967909&Signature=XQFros7-KUL-j0JUebNRtynHyozGbTYZ1r3y4hAIlwTf49kG55y26jgZl0z1z149SNbufJH9jCxKrC-c8zrEcqr7~5LmHM7k2QOORIGAbKQMuO8ho2C75Aw4z29iobrYW4ulF5gT1UJYgI-tVT-roCqH5V9rO9KYATUmfFUCcaN3GGxRRfhWjLt0LgTv7Ocj5~MznqbJqmwJy20GIzRF7xuScKTg8eDIT0ro3aldAbgu9oH2CUM7VOzqUCYGoLSK9uO6VQzUufm8Lw7A9aM7tX9oic4VKN~WEaT30OoO8VMzuY~phliwSa4tm7Ghv2uuU69i0DbM1-0jqlpDZUgFDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Rules Committee heard testimony and extended debate on H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (the \"SAVE Act\"), which would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for registration in federal elections.

Supporters, including Representative Gary Stile (chair of the Committee on House Administration panel that testified), said the bill responds to a legal gap created after Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council (2013) and the current practice of state driver’s license offices providing voter-registration forms to people who are not U.S. citizens. Stile and other witnesses argued the bill restores congressional authority to require documentary proof and would give states tools to remove noncitizens from voter rolls and to access federal and state data to verify citizenship.

Opponents, including Committee member Representative James McGovern and Representative Debbie Wasserman (speakers during the hearing), warned the bill would impose substantial new costs and logistical hurdles on eligible voters — particularly married women who use a married name different from their birth certificate, seniors, rural residents and military personnel serving overseas. Witnesses noted that millions of eligible voters do not possess U.S. passports and that only a handful of states currently indicate citizenship on Real ID driver’s licenses.

Several members and witnesses raised specific concerns and proposed fixes. Representative Johnson proposed three amendments (allow online submission of documentation; create a rapid judicial \"right to cure\" for improperly denied registrants; and add remedies and accountability for officials who intentionally deny eligible voters), arguing those changes would limit unintended disenfranchisement. Opponents highlighted the potential for added costs (for example, passport fees) and uneven state implementation, saying some states could adopt more burdensome requirements while others would make registration easier.

Committee members traded procedural questions about why the bill was being reintroduced and what effect immediate enactment would have on special and upcoming elections; witnesses and members also discussed protections for overseas voters under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which the SAVE Act does not change.

No committee vote occurred during the hearing. Members said the legislation will be subject to further review and floor procedures, and several Democrats pledged to offer amendments intended to protect eligible voters from accidental or discriminatory disenfranchisement.

The hearing highlighted the policy tradeoffs between tightening documentary checks to prevent ineligible voting and avoiding new barriers that could deny or delay registration for eligible citizens.","The House Rules Committee heard testimony on H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register for federal elections. Proponents said the bill closes a statutory gap; critics argued it would disproportionately burden eligible voters including married women, seniors,","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Rules hearing exposes sharp partisan split over bill to limit nationwide injunctions

House Rules hears Financial Services panel on two CRA resolutions targeting CFPB rules on overdraft fees and payment apps

Rules Committee debates SAVE Act; supporters cite election integrity, opponents warn of voter burdens