H.R.1526 - No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; NORRA of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1526, the "No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025," aims to limit the authority of U.S. district courts to issue broad injunctive relief. The bill amends Title 28 of the United States Code, restricting district courts' ability to issue injunctions that apply beyond the parties directly involved in a case. It introduces an exception for cases brought by two or more states in different circuits challenging executive branch actions, which would be referred to a three-judge panel.
Expected Effects
The act would significantly curtail the scope of injunctions issued by district courts, preventing them from affecting individuals or entities not directly party to the lawsuit. This could lead to more localized and case-specific remedies. The exception for multi-state challenges to executive actions introduces a special process involving a three-judge panel and consideration of broader impacts.
Potential Benefits
- Limits judicial overreach: Prevents single district court judges from imposing nationwide injunctions.
- Preserves separation of powers: Requires three-judge panels to consider the constitutional separation of powers when issuing injunctions against the executive branch.
- Reduces uncertainty: By limiting the scope of injunctions, businesses and individuals may face less regulatory uncertainty.
- Encourages targeted litigation: Promotes lawsuits that directly address specific harms to the parties involved.
- Addresses forum shopping: The three-judge panel for multi-state lawsuits aims to mitigate the impact of forum shopping.
Potential Disadvantages
- Hinders broad remedies: Limits the ability to address widespread harms through injunctive relief.
- Complicates multi-state litigation: Introduces a more complex process for cases involving multiple states challenging executive actions.
- Increases litigation costs: May require more lawsuits to achieve similar outcomes due to the limited scope of injunctions.
- Potential for inconsistent rulings: Different district courts could issue conflicting rulings on the same issue, affecting different regions.
- Delays in addressing national issues: The three-judge panel process could slow down the resolution of challenges to executive actions.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's attempt to limit the scope of injunctive relief could be seen as an effort to define the powers of the judiciary, which is within the purview of Congress under Article III of the Constitution. The creation of a special process for multi-state lawsuits against the executive branch raises questions about equal protection and the balance of power. The constitutionality of limiting the power of the courts has been debated since the founding, with some arguing that it infringes on the judiciary's role in interpreting the law.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).