House Passes Bill to Limit National Injunctions Against Trump

House Passes Bill to Limit Nationwide Injunctions Amid Ongoing Judicial Battles

The House of Representatives passed a controversial piece of legislation on Wednesday aimed at limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This legislative move reflects an ongoing push by Republican lawmakers to counteract judicial decisions that have halted various executive actions taken by President Trump.

The bill, known as the No Rogue Rulings Act, was approved largely along party lines, with a narrow vote of 219 to 213. If enacted, it would significantly constrain federal district court judges by allowing them to issue judgments limited to the parties involved in specific lawsuits. This restriction would prevent judges from issuing broader rulings that could block policies or executive actions from being enforced across the country. However, the legislation includes an exception for cases brought by multiple states, which would need to be reviewed by a three-judge panel.

Despite its passage in the House, the bill faces a daunting challenge in the Senate. To move forward, it would require the support of at least seven Democratic senators to join their Republican counterparts. To date, similar proposals have not gained traction in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which suggests that the bill’s prospects for becoming law are slim.

Republicans have characterized the legislation as a necessary response to what they perceive as an overreach of judicial power. They argue that an unelected federal judge in a single district should not possess the authority to block the executive branch’s implementation of nationwide policies. Representative Darrell Issa of California, who introduced the measure, emphasized on the House floor that while a Supreme Court ruling requires substantial agreement among justices, a single district judge should not be able to impose national policy decisions.

Democrats, however, have countered that federal judges are simply fulfilling their constitutional duties by reviewing executive actions. They point out that the frequency of injunctions against President Trump stems from the aggressive nature of his policies, which they argue often exceed his legal authority and violate the law. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who serves as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, stated that the number of cases lost by the Trump administration within a short span reflects unprecedented illegal actions.

The practice of issuing nationwide injunctions has a history that predates the current administration, with judges utilizing this power to halt actions from both Democratic and Republican administrations. The frequency of such injunctions surged during the latter years of President Barack Obama’s tenure and reached new heights during Trump’s first term, where a reported 64 injunctions were issued against his administration’s policies.

During President Biden’s time in office, judiciary rulings have also utilized nationwide injunctions, including efforts to challenge a federal mask mandate on airplanes, a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal contractors, and components of a student debt relief initiative. Both parties have voiced concerns over the implications of nationwide injunctions, and some justices on the Supreme Court have expressed skepticism regarding their use; however, Republican outrage intensified amid a spate of judicial rulings unfavorable to Trump, particularly those related to immigration.

Earlier in Trump’s second term, federal district judges made headlines with rulings that halted significant administration actions, which included attempts to fire thousands of civil servants, invalidate birthright citizenship, ban transgender individuals from military service, and use historic laws for deportation efforts. The Trump administration has responded to these rulings with emergency appeals seeking to reverse these decisions, asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of nationwide injunctions as part of a larger case addressing Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court’s involvement has been anticipated, especially since a ruling on this matter is expected to be announced soon. The justices have recently made moves to block lower court rulings that could have forced the rehiring of dismissed probationary workers and paused deportation procedures invoking early 18th-century laws.

Representative Issa’s bill has gained traction following a high-profile case in which Judge James E. Boasberg halted the Trump administration’s deportation actions, prompting Trump to call for the judge’s impeachment, a sentiment echoed by his advisors and some far-right House Republicans. However, no federal judge has ever faced impeachment solely for the results of a case, and Republican leaders have shown caution about pushing for such measures.

Instead, they are leaning towards legislative solutions to limit the powers of federal judges in issuing nationwide injunctions. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has indicated the possibility of using legislation related to government funding to impose restrictions on the judiciary’s capabilities in this regard.

This legislative battle highlights the ongoing tensions between the branches of government, as Republicans push to redefine the boundaries of judicial power while Democrats advocate for the judiciary’s essential role in upholding the law and checking executive authority.