Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee approves 'No Rogue Rulings' bill to limit nationwide injunctions from single judges
Loading...
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee advanced HR 1526, which would generally limit nationwide injunctions to the parties in a case and narrow the ability of a single district judge to enjoin nationwide executive action; supporters said it curbs judicial overreach, while opponents said it would
Representative Darrell Issa described HR 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, as a response to what he called broad nationwide injunctions issued by individual district judges that block executive actions across the country. "These nationwide injunctions have been exceptionally broad in scope and apply not only to the parties that sought the injunction in the case, but also to non parties," Issa said during the committee markup, arguing the bill would restore judicial restraint by limiting injunctive relief to parties before the court unless multiple parties and circuits are involved.
Opponents, led by committee Democrats, said nationwide relief remains necessary when a government action has broad nationwide effects or when individual plaintiffs cannot feasibly bring separate suits in every affected forum. Representative Jamie Raskin argued that nationwide injunctions are an essential tool for preventing irreparable harm in cases where implementation would immediately affect large numbers of people, and said the existing preliminary-injunction framework is the proper mechanism to evaluate those claims.
Committee debate included proposals to preserve an exception when multiple states or stakeholders demonstrate a national interest. Representative Brett Schmidt (and other members) offered an amendment to create a limited pathway for multistate challenges to be heard by a three-judge panel with expedited direct appeal to the Supreme Court; that amendment was adopted by the committee as a compromise to retain a pathway for broad injunctive relief when several states are plaintiffs and the matter spans circuits.
The committee adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute and ordered HR 1526 favorably reported to the House by roll-call vote; the transcript records a committee tally of 14 ayes and 9 noes and the chair ordered the bill reported. Democrats said they would oppose the underlying bill on the floor because it narrows judges' traditional equitable powers and could hamper rapid court responses to executive actions that affect widespread groups.
Ending: Committee recorded its approval and ordered HR 1526 to be reported favorably; supporters said the three-judge panel exception and expedited review preserve a path for multistate or multi-circuit challenges, while opponents said the bill would weaken judicial checks on executive overreach.
