April 10, 2025 Story by: Editor
The House passed legislation Wednesday mostly along party lines that limits the authority of federal district judges to issue nationwide orders, as Republicans react to several court rulings against the Trump administration.
In many cases, the courts are questioning whether the firings of federal workers, freezing of federal funds and shuttering of long-running federal offices are unlawful actions by the executive branch and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
The pace of nationwide injunctions has certainly increased during Donald Trump’s presidency. Republicans are arguing that the increase is the result of “activist liberal judges.” Democrats counter that the courts are simply striking down illegal executive orders and actions from the Trump administration. They also note that some of the judges issuing the injunctions were nominated by Republican presidents.
The bill passed by a vote of 219-213. It limits the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court, rather than applying the relief nationally. But the bill is unlikely to advance through the Senate, where at least some Democratic support would be needed.
The Congressional Research Service said it’s difficult to get an exact count on the number of nationwide injunctions. It’s not a legal term with a precise definition, so counts vary based on methodology. But it identified 86 nationwide injunctions issued during the first Trump administration and 28 cases during Joe Biden’s presidency. It found 17 nationwide injunctions as of March 27 in Trump’s second term.
Republicans have rallied around the view that federal courts are overstepping and treating Trump’s actions differently than those of previous presidents. Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., said that a single district court judge can hold the “America First agenda hostage indefinitely” and “this must end.”
“We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d’etat,” added Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo.
Democrats said that Trump’s reliance on executive orders to enact his agenda and purposefully sidestep Congress are part of why the courts have weighed in more frequently against Trump.
“If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That is simple,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.
And they questioned why Republicans didn’t voice similar concerns during the Biden presidency.
“Where were my colleagues when 14 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents issued injunctions against policies that the Biden administration was pursuing over the course of the last four years? Where were they? Nowhere to be found,” said Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo. “Spare me the feigned indignation.”
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who sponsored the bill, said it will deter forum shopping by groups that seek out a sympathetic district court judge most likely to block a president’s actions. He also said that limiting the authority of district judges is not a partisan issue. Then-Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., sponsored a similar bill in the last Congress.
“It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan,” Issa said. “To do the right thing at this time is critical.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has sponsored a comparable bill. Lawmakers are also pursuing other actions targeting the courts. Rep. Jim Jordan, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to colleagues who set spending levels and asked them to include language in upcoming funding bills that prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to enforce “overbroad injunctions” beyond the specific parties in a case.
Jordan is also calling on them to block federal dollars from being used to compel compliance with nationwide injunctions, such as imposing fines or conducting contempt proceedings.
“These steps would reinforce the proper limits of judicial power and ensure that taxpayer resources support a judiciary that respects its constitutional role,” Jordan said.
Such restrictions would also be unlikely to clear the 60-vote threshold necessary to advance spending legislation in the Senate, though it’s possible Republicans would try to attach it to a must-spend bill to keep the government open or prevent a government default.
Source: AP News
