House Republicans Launch Campaign To Restrict Nationwide Injunctions

Courtesy of the House Judiciary Committee, https://judiciary.house.gov/.

The Facts

President Donald Trump has kicked off his second term with a strong footing. From the unprecedented number of immigrant deportations to the enactment of global tariffs, Trump has remained consistent with his policy platform. However, individual litigants and associated organizations have filed hefty lawsuits to hinder the administration from effectuating seemingly radical and disproportionate policies.

Across the nation, federal district courts and courts of appeals have swarmed to enjoin federal laws and executive orders. Progressive organizations like the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the American Civil Liberties Union have targeted laws and orders that purportedly cut funding to programs that provide “freedom” for people who are historically marginalized in comparison to other groups.

On April 9, 2025, House Republicans convened and passed the No Rogue Rulings Act. In practice, this law prohibits courts from signing orders that extend equitable remedies to non-parties. House Democrats recognize this playbook and argue that the Act would bequeath unfettered legislative authority to Republicans in both the Senate and House to enact policies without obstruction from federal courts and courts of appeals.

The Argument

Nation injunctions were expected. For years, legal scholars and appellate courts have wrestled with tough questions about these sweeping orders. While one court can decide the fate of a law with a single stroke, other courts must accept their decision. Last year, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar voiced resistance to that asymmetric dynamic. Nationwide injunctions, she argued, are “inconsistent with…limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts.”

Traditionally, litigants that file a lawsuit must present a “tangible” and “concrete” injury. In turn, federal courts are permitted address those narrow and specific injuries. But nationwide injunctions extend the scope one step further by prohibiting everyone—including related parties and non-parties—from enforcing federal laws or executive orders. Because non-affected parties lack an interest in the judgment, universal injunctions are untenable.

Courtesy of Dana Verkouteren, American Bar Association Journal.

Beyond equity, nationwide injunctions open the door to a plethora of other concerns. If a single court can strike down a law, litigants will selectively file cases in courts that would issue favorable injunctions—a practice called forum shopping. Democrats, however, take a pragmatic view. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash), for instance, argues that “Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in…holding the political branches accountable.”

Justice Gorsuch, whose conservative background favors restricting the scope of federal power, has similarly gestured toward regulating nationwide injunctions. In a string of judgments, Justice Gorsuch has “reminded [federal courts] of that foundational rule” that it is impermissible to grant a remedy “beyond what [is] necessary to provide relief” to a litigant who has been injured by a federal law or executive order.

In Conclusion

The fate of the No Rogue Rulings Act remains unclear. “This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif) did not mince words in his scathing retort to apprehensive Democrats. Despite the legislative bravado at the forefront of this policy, Republicans must bolster support in the Senate. As it stands, political analysts predict that the Act will not surmount the voting threshold.

Irrespective of the outcome, this remarkable piece of legislation has sparked a necessary debate to spur concentration on the issue of nationwide injunctions. While the Supreme Court has avoided addressing the scope of these orders, organizations and federal representatives will undoubtedly continue to debate the issue until both sides reach a consensus. Alternatively, the debate will end with this Act.