House hearing spotlights nationwide injunctions and bills to curb district-court rulings

A joint hearing of House Judiciary subcommittees on judicial overreach drew hours of argument Tuesday over whether district judges have used nationwide injunctions to usurp executive and legislative authority, and whether Congress or the courts should change the practice.

The hearing, convened by Chairman Issa of the Judiciary Committee, focused on draft legislation circulated by committee Republicans, including the so-called No Rogues Ruling Act, that would limit or eliminate the ability of a single district judge to impose relief that applies nationwide. Witnesses and members debated constitutional history, recent court statistics, and potential remedies ranging from a new statute to a Supreme Court rule or expedited appeals.

Why it matters: Nationwide injunctions can pause federal policies across the country based on litigation brought by a single plaintiff in a single district. Supporters of limits said the practice lets litigants "judge-shop" and permits one unelected judge to block actions by the president or Congress. Opponents said district judges are doing their constitutional job when they block executive actions that violate statutes or constitutional rights, and that retaliation against judges would threaten judicial independence and the rule of law.

Members and witnesses presented sharply different accounts of the scope and seriousness of the issue. Chairman Issa opened the hearing saying the panel was convened because, "a major malfunction in the Federal judiciary has been recognized," arguing that nationwide injunctions enable judges to halt policies…