A bill that would limit district court judges’ ability to block President Donald Trump’s policies nationwide cleared the House on April 9.
The measure, approved in a 219–213 vote, was put forward by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) as an attempt to curb the barrage of district court rulings that have blocked or delayed Trump’s agenda on multiple fronts.
Wielding national injunctions in that way “undermines the system of government,” Issa said on the House floor April 8.
“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.”
Issa said that his bill would reaffirm “that district court orders can only bind parties before the court and not nonparties across the country.”
He added that the measure would also discourage the practice of judge shopping by litigants in districts more closely aligned with their political views.
Several other Republicans declared their support for the bill, including Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.), who said the nation is “experiencing a constitutional crisis—a judicial coup d’etat.”
Democrats called such claims hypocritical.
“Where were my colleagues when 14 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents issued injunctions against policies that the Biden administration was pursuing over the course of the last four years?” Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) asked. “Where were you? Nowhere to be found. … Spare me your feigned indignation.”
The Congressional Research Service identified 86 cases in which national injunctions were issued against the first Trump administration—more than three times the number (28) issued against the Biden administration.
Since January, judges have racked up an additional 17 universal injunctions against the Trump administration.
Issa acknowledged that both Republicans and Democrats have engaged in “judge shopping” to secure national injunctions against the executive actions of opposing administrations. He noted, however, that his bill accounts for cases where multiple states from different districts challenge such actions before one judge.
“As long as that judge is the nexus of at least one [state]—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,” Issa said.
The high court on Tuesday granted the administration’s request for a stay halting California U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s nationwide injunction that ordered the rehiring of 16,000 probationary employees who were fired from six federal agencies. The employees will remain on administrative leave as the lawsuit moves forward.
While the justices held that those detained under the Alien Enemies Act may challenge their detention, they ruled that the noncitizens brought their case in the wrong district and under the wrong cause of action.
Issa’s bill now advances to the Senate, where a similar proposal has been introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).
