Should we limit the power of individual federal judges to block nationwide policies?
This bill would stop single federal judges from making decisions that affect the entire country. Currently, one judge can block government policies nationwide. This new law would change that by only allowing judges to make rulings that affect the specific people involved in their case. When multiple states sue the government, a special three-judge team would be formed to hear the cases. Only this team could make broader rulings after carefully considering the fairness, potential harm, and balance of government powers. If someone disagrees with the ruling, they could appeal to either a higher court or directly to the Supreme Court. This law tries to ensure that major decisions affecting everyone aren't made by just one judge.
Sponsor: Rep. Darrell Issa (Republican, California, District 48)
View full bill text ➔
How do you feel?
Oppose
Support
Opponents say
• "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." Source: Rep. Jamie Raskin (Democrat, Maryland, District 8), via Congress.gov
• "[Republicans are] now trying to dismantle the power of the courts. [...] It proves just the opposite, that he’s engaged in terribly lawless and irresponsible violations of people’s rights — whether that’s trying to nullify the citizenship of millions of people by deleting the birthright citizenship clause or dismantling federally created, congressionally created agencies and departments. We shouldn’t completely rewrite the federal rules of civil procedure and appellant procedure in order to suit Donald Trump because he doesn’t like the fact that he’s losing every day in court." Source: Rep. Jamie Raskin (Democrat, Maryland, District 8), in The Hill
Proponents say
• "It’s never been more obvious that parts of our federal judiciary have a major malfunction of judicial activism. Practically every week, we see yet another federal judge issuing yet another nationwide injunction in yet another gambit to stop President Trump from exercising his Constitutional Article II powers and carrying out the policy agenda he promised the American people he would make a reality. In only the latest example, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg severely overstepped his authority and demonstrated the most critical shortfall of judicial temperament. By ordering planes containing dangerous illegal immigrants – that President Trump negotiated with a foreign country to let land – to turn around in midair makes a mockery of the important powers we assign to our federal judges. This isn’t even close to a legal disagreement involving standing, statute or precedent. It is the Trump Resistance in Robes. We have a crisis on the bench right now and not just with this or any single judge. My bill – The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 – won’t only deal with excesses like Judge Boasberg’s outrageous demands on the President and the Trump Administration. It is the comprehensive solution we need to ensure that this problem does not occur anywhere in our federal judiciary and resets the proper and appropriate balance in our courts. It has already passed the Judiciary Committee, and I look forward to this bill gaining the support of the full House, the Senate, and heading to President Trump’s desk." Source: Rep. Darrell Issa (Republican, California, District 48), the sponsor of this bill
• "Frankly, there’s the broader issue of all these judges’ injunctions, and then decisions like Judge Boasberg—what he’s trying to do and how that case is working. We’re going to have hearings on all of that, because particularly when you look at Judge Boasberg, it starts to look like this is getting totally political from this guy. Particularly when you remember he’s also the judge who was part of the whole Trump-Russia FISA court—granting those warrants that allowed the Comey FBI to spy on President Trump’s campaign. So, we’re going to look at that issue as well. But hopefully, we can get that bill passed next week on the House floor, move it to the Senate, and hopefully get it to the President’s desk." Source: Rep. Jim Jordan (Republican, Ohio, District 4)
- Rogue Judges are the Trump Resistance in Robes - My Bill Will Stop Them (Press Release)
- House GOP looks to rein in judicial power amid calls for impeachment (The Hill)
- Judge accuses Trump administration of trying to undermine judiciary (NPR)
- Roberts rejects Trump’s call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans (AP News)
- Rep. Darrell Issa’s Largest Donors (OpenSecrets)
