WASHINGTON, D.C. — A newly introduced bill in the U.S. House of Representatives seeks to significantly restrict the ability of federal district courts to issue broad injunctions. This move could reshape interactions between courts, executive policies, and legislative actions.
The proposal, known as the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) in the 119th Congress. The bill would amend Title 28 of the U.S. Code to limit district courts from issuing injunctive relief beyond the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. If the legislation is passed, judges would be unable to halt federal laws or executive policies on a national scale, effectively ending the practice of nationwide injunctions, which has been used to block government actions before they take effect.
Key Provisions of NORRA
The No Rogue Rulings Act proposes adding Section 1370 to Chapter 85 of Title 28 in the U.S. Code. The bill explicitly states:
“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.”
By implementing this measure, the bill would eliminate district courts’ authority to issue broad injunctions affecting individuals or entities not directly involved in the litigation. This restriction ensures that judicial rulings only apply to the specific plaintiffs and defendants in the case at hand.
The Motivation Behind the Bill
The introduction of NORRA comes amid concerns about the role of federal district courts in issuing nationwide injunctions. Legal experts and policymakers have debated whether these rulings, often made by a single judge, allow courts to exert excessive control over federal policies, leading to legal inconsistencies and disruptions in governance.
Rep. Issa and his colleagues argue that district courts have exceeded their judicial mandate, often influencing national policy through broad rulings that affect the entire country. They believe that nationwide injunctions, which have been used to suspend policies related to immigration, healthcare, and environmental regulations, unfairly empower individual judges to dictate national governance.
“Judges should not be allowed to impose their personal policy preferences on the entire nation,” Issa said. “This bill ensures that courts operate within their constitutional boundaries while respecting the separation of powers.”
The bill aligns with recent concerns from conservative lawmakers and legal scholars who have criticized forum shopping, a tactic where litigants file lawsuits in jurisdictions that favor their arguments. By limiting the scope of injunctions, the bill aims to reduce strategic litigation designed to block federal policies through the judicial system.
Supporters and Critics Weigh In
NORRA has received strong support from Republican lawmakers and legal analysts advocating for judicial restraint. Many believe that only appellate courts or the Supreme Court should have the power to issue rulings that affect nationwide policies.
“Nationwide injunctions create legal confusion and paralyze government operations,” said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network. “Congress must take steps to restore balance among the three branches of government.”
Several business groups and federal agencies have also backed the measure, stating that it could prevent delays in policy implementation due to judicial intervention.
On the other hand, Democrats, civil rights organizations, and legal experts oppose the bill, arguing that nationwide injunctions serve as an essential check against government overreach. Critics warn that limiting district courts in this way could reduce access to judicial relief, making it more difficult to challenge potentially unconstitutional laws or executive actions.
“When a president enacts an illegal policy, people need immediate protection—not prolonged legal battles with uncertain outcomes,” said David Cole, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “This bill would significantly restrict communities seeking legal recourse.”
Opponents of NORRA cite historical examples of district court injunctions blocking unconstitutional policies, including challenges to the Trump administration’s travel bans, pandemic-related mandates, and previous civil rights violations.
Potential Impact on the Judiciary
If enacted, NORRA would cause a major shift in the power dynamics of the federal judiciary. District courts, which play a crucial role in the early stages of legal challenges, would lose the authority to halt federal actions on a national level. This change could result in:
- Fewer legal challenges against executive actions due to injunctions applying only to specific litigants.
- Increased reliance on appellate courts and the Supreme Court for broader legal interpretations.
- Delays in resolving constitutional disputes, as organizations and individuals may need to wait for higher court rulings before securing nationwide relief.
What Comes Next?
The No Rogue Rulings Act has been referred to the appropriate House committee for review. It is expected to pass in the Republican-controlled House, but its fate in the Democratic-led Senate remains uncertain.
The bill faces significant challenges, as Senate Democrats and President Joe Biden’s administration have signaled opposition to measures that limit judicial oversight. Even if the bill advances through Congress, legal challenges could arise, potentially pushing the matter to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the debate over judicial authority, the separation of powers, and district courts’ roles will likely intensify. For now, the No Rogue Rulings Act adds another layer to the broader national discussion on judicial influence and the scope of legal injunctions.
Correction: This article has been updated to clarify that the bill applies to district courts and does not affect the injunction powers of appellate or Supreme Courts.
For more updates on judicial reform and federal legislation, follow Rocklanddailynews.com.
Ten years of experience reporting. From car chases and courtroom verdicts to House fires, Holsford thrives during breaking news and finds it a privilege to help drive the conversation in Rockland County and the Greater New York Area. Born in San Bernardino, Thomas is a New York boy at heart. He received his bachelor’s degree in broadcast journalism, specializing in political science and sociology, from the University of Illinois
