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 from issuing injunctions that apply beyond the parties involved in the case, including non-parties represented by a party. It introduces an exception for cases brought by two or more states from different circuits challenging executive branch actions, which would be referred to a three-judge panel selected randomly.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill would be to narrow the scope of injunctive relief issued by district courts, preventing nationwide injunctions in most cases. This would likely lead to more localized and specific court orders, potentially resulting in inconsistent application of laws across different jurisdictions. The exception for multi-state lawsuits against the executive branch introduces a special process involving a three-judge panel.
Potential Benefits
- Reduces the impact of single district court judges on national policy.
- May lead to more tailored and specific legal remedies.
- Could encourage Congress to legislate more definitively, rather than relying on court interpretations.
- The three-judge panel for multi-state lawsuits provides a check on executive power.
- Limits the power of individual judges to set national policy.
Potential Disadvantages
- May lead to inconsistent application of laws across different states.
- Could increase litigation as parties seek favorable rulings in different jurisdictions.
- The three-judge panel process may introduce delays and complexities.
- Could weaken the ability of courts to protect constitutional rights on a national scale.
- May empower the executive branch by limiting judicial oversight.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Article III of the Constitution vests judicial power in the federal courts, and this bill seeks to limit that power. Proponents might argue that Congress has the power to regulate the jurisdiction of lower federal courts. Opponents might argue that it infringes on the judiciary's ability to provide equitable remedies and enforce constitutional rights. The creation of a special three-judge panel for cases involving multiple states challenging the executive branch raises questions about equal protection and the separation of powers.
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).