House Approves Legislation to Limit Nationwide Injunctions Issued by Judges

A bill that seeks to restrict district court judges from nationwide blocking of President Donald Trump’s policies passed the House on April 9.

The legislation was approved with a vote of 219–213, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) in an effort to mitigate the influx of district court decisions that have obstructed or postponed Trump’s initiatives.

Issa criticized the use of national injunctions, stating it “undermines the system of government,” during his remarks on the House floor on April 8.

“It gives power to individual, unelected judges to dictate national policy and disrupt the Constitution, taking authority reserved for Congress and the President of the United States,” he asserted.

Issa emphasized that his bill aims to clarify “that district court orders are binding only on the litigants before the court and not applicable to nonparties nationwide.”

Related Stories

Issa also mentioned that the bill would deter the practice of “judge shopping” by litigants seeking favorable rulings from courts that align with their political ideology.

Other Republicans expressed their backing for the measure, including Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.), who declared that the country is “experiencing a constitutional crisis—a judicial coup d’état.”

Democrats countered that such assertions were hypocritical.

“Where were my colleagues when 14 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents issued injunctions against policies that the Biden administration pursued over the past four years?” asked Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.). “Where were you? Nowhere to be found… Spare me your false indignation.”

The Congressional Research Service noted 86 instances where national injunctions were executed against the first Trump administration—more than three times the 28 issued against the Biden administration.

Since January, judges have additionally issued 17 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration.

Issa acknowledged the practice of “judge shopping” by both parties to obtain national injunctions against the policies of opposing administrations. However, he asserted that his bill addresses cases where multiple states challenge such actions in front of a single judge.

“As long as that judge is the nexus of at least one state—and conversely, in the case of the District of Columbia, perhaps represents all—he or she should rule for all the plaintiffs before them,” Issa stated.

The House passed the bill after the Supreme Court granted significant victories to the Trump administration in two cases involving nationwide injunctions.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court approved the Trump administration’s request to halt California U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s national injunction that mandated the rehiring of 16,000 probationary employees who were terminated from six federal agencies. The affected employees will remain on administrative leave as the lawsuit advances.

While the justices ruled that those detained under the Alien Enemies Act have the right to contest their detention, they determined that the noncitizens filed their case in the incorrect district and under the wrong legal premise.

Issa’s legislation will now move to the Senate, where a similar bill has been introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Jack Phillips and Sam Dorman contributed to this report.