NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025

On 2025-04-08, Representative Wesley Bell (D-MO-1) delivered a floor speech titled "NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025" in the House.

NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025)] [House] [Pages H1482-H1492] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025 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. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Malliotakis). Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the bill is considered read. The text of the bill is as follows: H.R. 1526 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025'' as the ``NORRA of 2025''. SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS TO PROVIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. (a) In General.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec. 1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court and non-parties represented by such a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ``(b) If a case is brought by two or more States located in different circuits challenging an action by the executive branch, that case shall be referred to a three-judge panel selected pursuant to section 2284, except that the selection of judges shall be random, and not by the chief judge of the circuit. The three-judge panel may issue an injunction that would otherwise be prohibited under subsection (a), and shall consider the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable harm to non-parties, and the preservation of the constitutional separation of powers in determining whether to issue such an order. ``(c) An appeal of an order granting or denying injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (b) may lie to the circuit embracing the district or to the Supreme Court, at the preference of the party.''. (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following: ``1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief.''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). General Leave Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1526. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California? There was no objection. 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. {time} 1530 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. [[Page H1483]] Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the No Rogue Rulings Act and restore the constitutional balance and respect for separation of powers, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526. I heard the majority was bringing legislation forward to clean up a major policy crisis taking place within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, and that sounded pretty good to me because we are drowning in crises. The problem is that this bill does not address any of the real major policy crises of the first 100 days that Trump has caused for America. They are wasting our time with this bill by misdiagnosing and mislabeling the judicial response to these crises as a crisis itself. The whole country is reeling right now from the economic disaster Trump has plunged us into. He destroyed more than $10 trillion in American wealth in 1 single week, and then he went golfing and bragged to America about winning the tournament at his own golf course. Madam Speaker, that is like bragging about being endorsed by your own campaign manager. With so much winning, the country can hardly stand how much winning Trump is doing for himself, Elon Musk, and his billionaire Cabinet. Perhaps he could have yelled fore on the fareway so tens of millions of Americans could have taken our retirement savings out of the stock market before he hit us in the head with a golf ball. Trump's ruinous tariffs have crushed our relationships with democratic allies and loyal trade partners like Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Germany, and France while delicately carving out an exception for Trump's friends in the home office back in Russia. When asked why Putin uniquely escapes the wrath of Trump's global trade war, we are told it is because Trump doesn't want to interfere with the negotiations takin

Referenced legislation: HRES294, HRES294, HR1526