The House passed legislation on Wednesday that would bar federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, part of an escalating Republican campaign to take aim at judges who have moved to halt some of President Trump’s executive orders.
The bill, approved mostly along party lines on a vote of 219 to 213, would largely limit district court judges to issuing narrow orders that pertain to parties involved in a specific lawsuit, rather than broader ones that can block a policy or action from being enforced throughout the country. It would make an exception in cases that were brought by multiple states, which would need to be heard by a three-judge panel.
It faces a slim chance of becoming law because of the obstacles it faces in the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to join Republicans to allow it to advance. So far, similar bills have not been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
House Republicans have framed the legislation, named the No Rogue Rulings Act, as a necessary constitutional check on what they claim is an abuse of power by judges attempting to wield political influence from the bench.
Citing an increase in nationwide injunctions since Mr. Trump took office, Republican lawmakers have argued that an unelected federal judge in one district should not be able to block the executive branch from implementing nationwide policies, a duty they say should be left to appeals courts or the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court “must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes that they can make the law of the land,” Representative Darrell Issa, the California Republican who introduced the bill, said on the House floor on Wednesday.
Democrats have argued that federal judges are simply performing their duty to review executive actions. They say that Mr. Trump has been subject to a flurry of injunctions because he has pushed aggressive policies that exceed the scope of his authority and violate the law.
“If it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said.
Nationwide injunctions, in which judges stop policies from being implemented while their legality is being weighed in court, have long been used by judges to halt actions taken by both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Their use grew during President Barack Obama’s second term and then exploded during Mr. Trump’s first term, when 64 injunctions were issued against his administration’s policies, according to a 2024 survey by the Harvard Law Review. During President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s term, judges used them to halt a federal mask mandate on airplanes, a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for federal contractors and parts of a student debt relief plan.
Members of both parties have complained about nationwide injunctions for years, and some Supreme Court justices have voiced skepticism about the tactic. But Republican anger over the practice has boiled over during Mr. Trump’s second term after a number of rulings went against him, particularly around immigration.
Less than three months into Mr. Trump’s second term, district judges have issued nationwide injunctions or temporary restraining orders that stopped the Trump administration from firing thousands of civil servants; ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and foreign residents born on American soil; barring transgender troops from the military; and deporting migrants using an 18th-century wartime law.
The Trump administration has filed emergency applications to reverse many of these decrees, and has asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of nationwide injunctions, as part of a case related to Mr. Trump’s executive order attempting to eliminate birthright citizenship. Implementation of that order was paused nationally by lower federal courts. A ruling on it from the justices is expected any time.
Just this week, the Supreme Court blocked district court rulings that would have required the rehiring of fired probationary workers and temporarily stopped the administration from deporting migrants using the Alien Enemies Act, a law from 1798 that the White House has said allows it to deport supposed gang members without court hearings.
Mr. Issa’s bill gained momentum in the wake of that last case, in which James E. Boasberg, a veteran judge in the District of Columbia, temporarily stopped the administration’s deportations. A furious Mr. Trump called for Judge Boasberg to be impeached, a call echoed by key advisers and a number of hard-right House Republicans.
But no federal judge has ever been impeached strictly for the outcome of a case, and Republican leaders have been wary of pursuing judicial impeachments. Instead, they suggested pursuing alternatives, including curbing judges’ powers.
Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has called for using spending bills to limit their ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
Michael Gold covers Congress for The Times, with a focus on immigration policy and congressional oversight.
The post House Votes to Curb National Injunctions, Targeting Judges Who Thwart Trump appeared first on New York Times.
