The House of Representatives recently approved a bill primarily along party lines, addressing the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This move by the Republicans comes in response to multiple court decisions challenged against actions taken by the Trump administration.
The focus on nationwide injunctions has seen a rise during Donald Trump’s presidency, with Republicans attributing this to “activist liberal judges.” However, Democrats argue that these courts are merely invalidating illegal executive orders from the Trump administration, pointing out that some of these judges are, in fact, appointed by Republican presidents.
In this legislative action, the bill, which passed with a vote of 219-213, proposes to restrict injunctive relief by district judges to only those directly involved in a case, instead of applying it to the entire nation. Despite its passage in the House, the bill faces slim chances in the Senate, where some level of Democratic endorsement is necessary.
The Congressional Research Service finds it challenging to determine the precise number of nationwide injunctions, as it lacks a specific legal definition. It recorded 86 such injunctions during Trump’s first administration, 28 under Joe Biden’s presidency, and 17 during Trump’s second term as of this March.
Republicans have made the point that federal courts are unfairly targeting Trump’s actions, asserting that no previous president faced such judicial scrutiny. For example, Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., argues that one district court judge can potentially impede the “America First agenda” indefinitely. Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., also stated this as a “constitutional crisis.”
Conversely, Democrats blame Trump’s dependency on executive orders, which bypass Congress, for the increased legal interventions against his policies. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., remarked that if unlawful acts are avoided, so will injunctions. Furthermore, Democrats question the lack of Republican concern when federal judges appointed by Republicans challenged Biden’s policies. Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo., pointed out the apparent double standard.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who introduced the bill, expressed that it aims to deter forum shopping, where groups seek sympathetic district court judges to halt a president’s actions. He emphasized that modifying district judges’ authority should not be viewed as a partisan endeavor, as similar proposals were presented by Democratic representatives in past congressional sessions. Issa stated that addressing this issue is crucial, though Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced a similar bill with little chance of overcoming a Democratic filibuster.
As discussions continue, other measures targeting the judiciary are being pursued by lawmakers. For instance, Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican head of the House Judiciary Committee, advocates for including provisions in future funding bills to limit the use of taxpayer funds for enforcing broad injunctions beyond involved parties.
Moreover, Jordan proposed blocking the use of federal finances to enforce compliance with nationwide injunctions, such as executing fines or contempt proceedings. He believes such measures would reinforce judicial power limits and ensure constitutional adherence. Nonetheless, these suggestions would still struggle to garner the 60 votes required for Senate passage, though Republicans might attach them to essential spending bills to ensure government continuity or prevent a potential default.