No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. 1526.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in recent years it has become glaringly obvious that Federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds under Article III of the Constitution which applies that lower courts are created under statute by Congress. Pursuant to congressional action, district judges are limited to the plaintiff before them that has nexus in their district.
Madam Speaker, in short, that means that a district judge needs to be confined to their district and to people who are in their district. Case after case, over decades, has shown that when they fail to do so, the cases are thrown out.
More importantly, if they were to continue to do what is generally called nationwide injunctions, then, in fact, there would be no need for a 5-4 or 6-3 decision by the High Court. The High Court of nine must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes they can make the law of the land.
Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges whom they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives.
Proof of that occurred just yesterday when, by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet another judge's national ban was overturned.
These actions touch on many of the most critical issues facing our country, such as securing our borders, reforming insufficient and ineffective government bureaucracy, and strengthening our military.
Let me be absolutely clear. These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at its worst. Don't just take my word for it, Madam Speaker. As late as October of last year, the Solicitor General of the Biden administration urged the end of these practices, stating that, in fact, the Biden administration has to win every time, but the opposition only has to win one out of even one dozen cases. That is exactly the problem we are facing.
The Supreme Court regularly considers cases that are done in the ordinary course where one district judge, and perhaps a jury, rules one way and another rules another way, and the courts, through the appellate process, come up with a single law of the land. However, they do so looking at the arguments of both winning and losing, and they do so while the administration is not nationally and internationally banned.
National injunctions are being used to halt executive actions and executive orders not just for plaintiffs before the court but across the entire country, including individuals and entities that are not even parties to the litigation and, in many cases, may not favor the outcome and would not have been willing plaintiffs.
This undermines the system of government. It empowers individual, unelected judges to dictate national policy and to thwart the Constitution to take rights reserved to Congress and the President of the United States.
NORRA, the No Rogue Rulings Act, puts an end to this type of abuse. Under NORRA, we reaffirm the principles that district court orders can only bind parties before the court and not nonparties across the country. This reform will also discourage the growing trend to forum shop, Madam Speaker. If you can go to Hawaii because you can find a judge who will rule against an action taken here in the District of Columbia, then you will do so if you can get a nationwide injunction. If you can only enjoin individuals who may not even be affected by it, then there is no incentive to do so.
Madam Speaker, there are 677 current judge positions not including those on senior status. There are 677 individuals, each of whom can exceed their authority and stymie the legitimate actions of government. In some cases, these judges have even ordered the payment of amounts when the administration has determined that there is great risk of fraud.
During the last administration, they objected to this. They tried to stop it. Even in the last days before the election, the Biden administration was doing everything they could to accomplish what we are doing here today. In fact, there was even legislation in the last Congress authored by Democrats to do it.
This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this President, but that does not make it partisan. To do the right thing at this time is critical.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this bill. H.R. 1526, NORRA OF 2025 AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON MARCH 25, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, millions of dollars-- ----------------------------------- 2025 2025-2030 2025-2035 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Spending (Outlays)........... a a a Revenues............................ a a a Increase or Decrease (-) in the a a a Deficit............................ Spending Subject to Appropriation a a a (Outlays).......................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a. CBO has no basis to estimate the budgetary effects of enacting H.R.
1526.
Increases net direct spending in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036? a
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036? a
Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes
Mandate Effects
Contains intergovernmental mandate? No
Contains private-sector mandate? No
H.R. 1526 would limit the ability of U.S. district courts to issue broad injunctive relief that applies to nonparties. (Nonparties are individuals or entities not directly involved in a legal case.) Under current law, parties often seek injunctive and other forms of relief in federal courts to challenge federal laws, executive actions, and regulations. Injunctions and certain other forms of relief issued by judges in those cases can sometimes apply to nonparties.
Under the bill, district courts could only issue injunctions that provide relief to parties participating in the case (and to nonparties that are represented by parties in the case, such as in a class action). In a case brought by two or more state governments located in different circuits, H.R. 1526 would allow for a three-judge panel to provide injunctive relief that would otherwise be prohibited by the bill.
H.R. 1526 would not block district courts from issuing other forms of relief that can affect nonparties. For example, a district court could still vacate an agency action, such as by setting aside a new regulation, which could have similar effects on nonparties as injunctive relief.
Because many federal actions, such as executive orders and regulations promulgated by agencies, affect direct spending, revenues, and spending subject to appropriation, CBO expects that enacting the bill could have significant budgetary effects, depending on the extent to which judges choose to rely instead on other types of relief like vacatur. CBO cannot predict what actions will be litigated or the decisions that judges will make. Accordingly, CBO has no basis for estimating the budgetary effects of H.R. 1526.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director of Budget Analysis. Phillip L. Swagel, Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, all across the country, at record levels, activist judges are impeding President Trump's America First agenda with nationwide injunctions, depriving the American people of the changes they demanded in November.
To put how unprecedented this is into perspective, President Trump has faced more than twice as many nationwide injunctions as Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden combined. In addition, more than 90 percent of these nationwide injunctions have been issued by Democrat appointed judges.
I am calling this what it is: weaponized political lawfare.
There are 677 district court judgeships nationwide, and as of now, if just one of these judges decides to block an executive action, they can singlehandedly halt the President's agenda.
I am sure our Founders did not envision this extreme constitutional overreach from the judicial branch. Fortunately, Congressman Issa's No Rogue Rulings Act will correct this discrepancy by ensuring that district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions.
The American people demand sweeping change from us. From cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our bloated Federal Government to deporting the millions of illegal alien invaders, we need to make progress.
Right now, a single district court judge can impede this progress on a whim, essentially holding the America First agenda hostage indefinitely. This must end.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the No Rogue Rulings Act to stop this judicial tyranny from harming the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I did ask unanimous consent that all Members be able to place extraneous material in the Record. I guess they are taking me up on it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can just consider that every time the other side speaks, they will be speaking in violation of our rules about disparaging the President, and you need not say it each time, I trust.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Boebert).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I note that what the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) is referring to is what has now been affirmed as an inaccurate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. My colleagues on the other side, in disparaging the President, keep using the word ``illegal.''
I ask that my Democratic Colleagues really reconsider. The minority may disagree with the executive actions of the President. From time to time, the court may disagree. Yet, in fact, not only are his actions not illegal, but they are well within the reach of what any President might well do in trying to defend the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic.
We can disagree about the meaning of a law that has been on the books for 225 years. We should not disparage the motives or the actions of the chief executive simply because we disagree.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring down a little bit of the tone and remind everyone in this Chamber that the chief executive, since it was George Washington, has been charged by Congress to be the first to interpret the faithful execution of the Constitution and the amazing amount of laws that have been passed in our nearly 250 years.
During those decades, one after another, all the way back with Marbury v. Madison, there have been disagreements and the Court has interpreted, but those interpretations, including Brown v. Board of Education, historically became nationwide when the High Court by a majority ruled one direction or the other. That is the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be.
The ranking member of the full committee is a scholar and a teacher, a professor of this, and knows full well that we created under the Constitution a Supreme Court and then we gave to this branch, to Article I, to the Congress, the authority to create subordinated and specialized or limited courts. Those courts of any sort are under the Supreme Court because only the Supreme Court is to rule on the law of the land.
Now, my colleagues have noted the last administration and the fact that parties, including more than a dozen attorneys general, from time to time came and asked for and may or may not have been granted nationwide protection. This bill, as amended in committee, thoughtfully amended, in fact, takes into consideration that there may be times in which multiple States are represented before one judge. As long as that judge is the nexus of at least one, and in the case of the District of Columbia perhaps speaks for all, he or she should rule on behalf of all the plaintiffs represented in front of them.
Let it be clear: The work of the Supreme Court is not just to overturn one ruling by a judge. The Court most often in the 62 to 66 cases it takes per session, per year, rules primarily on when there is a difference between the ruling in one and the ruling in another. It rules very often because there needs to be a single voice for the law of the land.
There doesn't always have to be. The fact is, if a plaintiff comes and says they represent one of many unlawful aliens, criminals, or terrorists who have been deported under a law that has been on the books for more than 225 years, the judge has a right to rule if that defendant has a legitimate nexus in their court, has a right to rule as to that plaintiff or any others that come before him that have nexus, but to rule that the President must turn an airplane around with dangerous terrorists on it, why? Why would you do that?
The fact is, judges are shopped for. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rightfully so, said that venue shopping has become a problem. That is not limited to Republicans or Democrats. In fact, both sides do it.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they do it in civil cases. They do it all over the place. Lawyers are very good at it, but as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet and with the ranking member of the full committee here today, it is our obligation to fine-tune the law so that, in fact, these kinds of injustices don't happen. We are here today to fine-tune the law to protect the Constitution and the intent of Congress for more than 225 years.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Court ruled against the district judge by a 5-4 ruling undoing this whole question of does the President have the right to deport aliens. Yes. They said that there was a possibility of bringing a case in Texas as to one or more of them. To be honest, we have said that for quite a while that, in fact, there was a procedure and that, in fact, the chief judge of the D.C. circuit assigned himself four cases and made a decision that a chief judge should know better than.
Now, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the right way to deal with a judge that makes a bad ruling is, in fact, appeal it. However, the right way to deal with judges who take cases, take another case, take a total of four cases so far, and seem to rule very predictably, even if inaccurately, against the Trump administration is, in fact, to rein in the excesses.
We try to do this in a measured way. I might note for the speaker that just today by a 7-2 overwhelming majority, the Court ruled, to no surprise to this Congressman, that the President has the right to dismiss probationary employees, even though an activist judge stayed that and said that he didn't have that right, that somehow everyone else can get rid of probationary employees, including the last administration that summarily dismissed immigration judges on the last days of the probationary period, and did so without seeing a nationwide injunction.
There were plenty of opportunities to disagree, but I hope that my colleagues, once again, as the speaker has so well stated, will stop claiming that these are illegal actions when we simply agree or disagree with the actions of the President and in many cases the Court finds the President is well within his rights in faithfully executing his obligations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as I close, since the ranking member so aptly named a couple of famous quotes and famous movies, I might call attention to the line: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The other side, just a few months ago, supported this legislation in a more radical form than, in fact, we bring today. Thanks to Congressman Schmidt and others on the committee, we have thoughtfully amended this to make it limited, for which the ranking member and others seem to claim that we were somehow being nefarious. No, we weren't.
In the last cycle under President Biden, yes, half a dozen or so attorneys general came and disagreed with the attempt to forgive $188 billion in student loans. There was a temporary injunction on behalf of those multiple States. Lo and behold, the High Court stated and ruled that, in fact, he didn't have the authority, saving us nearly $200 billion that was being given away by Joe Biden.
Not in any way deterred by that, President Biden bragged that he circumvented it and did give away billions more. That is still something being worked on by this body.
Presidents push the limits of their authority. President Biden certainly did. President Obama famously said he didn't have the authority to do things and then did them later and dared the Court to stop him.
I think we have to come here and realize if we do our job, we are drawing the appropriate balance on one of the two branches that we do have an obligation to keep an eye on. We keep an eye on the executive branch, and the minority being the branch not of the President generally calls the strikes, the balls, and not the home runs. That is okay. They do it, and they have been doing it for 250 years. I commend them.
We also have an obligation to come together, to communicate, to not have a failure to communicate, to realize that on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the best interests of the High Court not being swamped with an amazing amount of these, and not having future Presidents find themselves deterred from executing what they believe is best in a timely fashion, that we come together and vote this moderate and, quite frankly, modest piece of legislation. It won't stop all national injunctions, but it will define more narrowly when they can be done. I hope we would do that.
I will close simply by saying Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet out not necessarily having the money to get them back. Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed the bounds of the Constitution for what he thought was right, including the incarceration of threats to our democracy under this very act, and the Court affirmed that.
Presidents have seen reasons to do it. This President has seen an onslaught, more than 10 million illegals, many of them actually here from terrorist gangs, and he is trying to protect our Nation.
I would hope that instead of talking about Elon Musk and others, we would come together to do something that we know if the next President is of the other party, my colleagues will be supporting something that looks amazingly like what we have in front of us today.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all who are watching and listening take heed that this is a bill supported by the last administration and should be supported by everyone in this body.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source