[Pages H1482-H1492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO ROGUE RULINGS ACT OF 2025
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit
the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Malliotakis). Pursuant to House
Resolution 294, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1526
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No Rogue Rulings Act of
2025'' as the ``NORRA of 2025''.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTS TO PROVIDE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
(a) In General.--Chapter 85 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive
relief
``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no United States district court
shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except
in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit
the actions of a party to the case before such district court
with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such
district court and non-parties represented by such a party
acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
``(b) If a case is brought by two or more States located in
different circuits challenging an action by the executive
branch, that case shall be referred to a three-judge panel
selected pursuant to section 2284, except that the selection
of judges shall be random, and not by the chief judge of the
circuit. The three-judge panel may issue an injunction that
would otherwise be prohibited under subsection (a), and shall
consider the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable
harm to non-parties, and the preservation of the
constitutional separation of powers in determining whether to
issue such an order.
``(c) An appeal of an order granting or denying injunctive
relief pursuant to subsection (b) may lie to the circuit
embracing the district or to the Supreme Court, at the
preference of the party.''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:
``1370. Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
General Leave
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 1526.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in recent years it has become glaringly obvious that
Federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds under
Article III of the Constitution which applies that lower courts are
created under statute by Congress. Pursuant to congressional action,
district judges are limited to the plaintiff before them that has nexus
in their district.
Madam Speaker, in short, that means that a district judge needs to be
confined to their district and to people who are in their district.
Case after case, over decades, has shown that when they fail to do so,
the cases are thrown out.
More importantly, if they were to continue to do what is generally
called nationwide injunctions, then, in fact, there would be no need
for a 5-4 or 6-3 decision by the High Court. The High Court of nine
must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land,
and yet a single district judge believes they can make the law of the
land.
{time} 1530
Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists
have cooperated with ideological judges whom they have sought out to
take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens
of lawful executive actions and initiatives.
Proof of that occurred just yesterday when, by a majority of the U.S.
Supreme Court, yet another judge's national ban was overturned.
These actions touch on many of the most critical issues facing our
country, such as securing our borders, reforming insufficient and
ineffective government bureaucracy, and strengthening our military.
Let me be absolutely clear. These sweeping injunctions represent
judicial activism at its worst. Don't just take my word for it, Madam
Speaker. As late as October of last year, the Solicitor General of the
Biden administration urged the end of these practices, stating that, in
fact, the Biden administration has to win every time, but the
opposition only has to win one out of even one dozen cases. That is
exactly the problem we are facing.
The Supreme Court regularly considers cases that are done in the
ordinary course where one district judge, and perhaps a jury, rules one
way and another rules another way, and the courts, through the
appellate process, come up with a single law of the land. However, they
do so looking at the arguments of both winning and losing, and they do
so while the administration is not nationally and internationally
banned.
National injunctions are being used to halt executive actions and
executive orders not just for plaintiffs before the court but across
the entire country, including individuals and entities that are not
even parties to the litigation and, in many cases, may not favor the
outcome and would not have been willing plaintiffs.
This undermines the system of government. It empowers individual,
unelected judges to dictate national policy and to thwart the
Constitution to take rights reserved to Congress and the President of
the United States.
NORRA, the No Rogue Rulings Act, puts an end to this type of abuse.
Under NORRA, we reaffirm the principles that district court orders can
only bind parties before the court and not nonparties across the
country. This reform will also discourage the growing trend to forum
shop, Madam Speaker. If you can go to Hawaii because you can find a
judge who will rule against an action taken here in the District of
Columbia, then you will do so if you can get a nationwide injunction.
If you can only enjoin individuals who may not even be affected by it,
then there is no incentive to do so.
Madam Speaker, there are 677 current judge positions not including
those on senior status. There are 677 individuals, each of whom can
exceed their authority and stymie the legitimate actions of government.
In some cases, these judges have even ordered the payment of amounts
when the administration has determined that there is great risk of
fraud.
During the last administration, they objected to this. They tried to
stop it. Even in the last days before the election, the Biden
administration was doing everything they could to accomplish what we
are doing here today. In fact, there was even legislation in the last
Congress authored by Democrats to do it.
This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this
President, but that does not make it partisan. To do the right thing at
this time is critical.
[[Page H1483]]
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the No Rogue Rulings
Act and restore the constitutional balance and respect for separation
of powers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526.
I heard the majority was bringing legislation forward to clean up a
major policy crisis taking place within the first 100 days of the Trump
administration, and that sounded pretty good to me because we are
drowning in crises. The problem is that this bill does not address any
of the real major policy crises of the first 100 days that Trump has
caused for America. They are wasting our time with this bill by
misdiagnosing and mislabeling the judicial response to these crises as
a crisis itself.
The whole country is reeling right now from the economic disaster
Trump has plunged us into. He destroyed more than $10 trillion in
American wealth in 1 single week, and then he went golfing and bragged
to America about winning the tournament at his own golf course. Madam
Speaker, that is like bragging about being endorsed by your own
campaign manager.
With so much winning, the country can hardly stand how much winning
Trump is doing for himself, Elon Musk, and his billionaire Cabinet.
Perhaps he could have yelled fore on the fareway so tens of millions of
Americans could have taken our retirement savings out of the stock
market before he hit us in the head with a golf ball.
Trump's ruinous tariffs have crushed our relationships with
democratic allies and loyal trade partners like Canada, Mexico, the
U.K., Germany, and France while delicately carving out an exception for
Trump's friends in the home office back in Russia.
When asked why Putin uniquely escapes the wrath of Trump's global
trade war, we are told it is because Trump doesn't want to interfere
with the negotiations taking place between Russia and Ukraine for a
cease-fire, an explanation that might have somewhat more force if Trump
had not made sure that the tariffs do apply to Ukraine as they do.
The basis for this most imbecilic and destructive trade war in the
history of the world is the profound economic research and policy
writings of one Ron Vara, a completely fictional economist conjured up
by Trump adviser Peter Navarro, a real person whom Elon Musk just
called a moron and dumb as a sack of bricks.
Navarro's last name, delightfully, is an anagram for Ron Vara. Madam
Speaker, you can try this yourself at home. Navarro turns into Ron
Vara. Navarro figured that out himself. That is perhaps the greatest
achievement of the Trump administration so far. What an enchanting and
clever basis upon which to crash the economy of the United States of
America.
Despite the fact that Congress, not the President, has the power to
regulate international commerce and legislate tariffs, our GOP
colleagues don't even want to have one hearing on the breathtaking
economic folly and wreckage of this fling into the abyss of trade war
with the world, much less do they want to do anything to reverse this
policy nightmare for tens of millions of businesspeople, farmers,
workers, retirees, and consumers being throttled by this historic,
self-inflicted wound.
No, today they want to talk about the real emergency, which is the
power of the United States district courts to issue universal
injunctions rather than just injunctions that apply to the specific
parties in the case.
It seems like a rather boutique and esoteric issue to raise in the
middle of an economic catastrophe that they just foisted upon America,
but there is a method to the madness. You see, Madam Speaker, Federal
judges have issued at least 68 court orders that block or pause the
administration's lawlessness to prevent irreparable harm in the country
from his unconstitutional actions. The judges deciding here were
appointed by five different Presidents, both Democratic Presidents and
Republican Presidents, in 11 different district courts across seven
circuits. The judges have explained in painstaking detail what is
unlawful about Trump's executive orders and actions.
Trump has offered no substantive critique of their legal reasoning,
but he and Musk still want the judges impeached. They say they should
be removed from office simply for striking down the President's illegal
policies, which is odd given that Trump and his party demanded for 4
years that Federal judges strike down President Biden's policies like
student loan forgiveness or immigration policies or EPA action on
climate change.
They seem to embrace Marbury v. Madison and judicial review of
Democratic Presidential actions but not of Republican actions. They say
that is because Trump just won an election. He beat Kamala Harris by 2
million votes.
Guess what, Madam Speaker. Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7
million votes, and that didn't stop them from suing to stop numerous
Biden policies they thought were unlawful. Sometimes they won, and
sometimes they lost. It is the same now. Nearly 160 cases have been
brought against Trump and Musk's actions. Trump has won some, and he
has lost some.
However, our colleagues protest that Trump is different because the
courts have issued relief in at least 57 different cases, a record
number of cases in American history, at record speed. That is true, but
if it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100
days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal
actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history.
As of today, he has already issued 111 executive orders in less than
100 days. Biden issued 162 in all 4 years. Trump can issue as many as
he wants, but he has got to make them constitutional because if they
are not, they are going to get struck down.
When Trump denounces the judges as radical left judges and lunatics
who have gone rogue like Judge Boasberg, he is just advertising his
complete ignorance of the Federal bench.
Judge Boasberg is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court, first
nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, who was Justice
Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale and a pillar of the conservative bar.
We have impeached only 15 judges in U.S. history, always for serious
misconduct like taking bribes, embezzlement, corruption, and habitual
drunkenness on the bench. It was never because of a doctrinal
disagreement and never because of a judge's legal ruling. As Chief
Justice Roberts said a few weeks ago, the proper response in our
democracy to a judicial decision that you disagree with is to appeal
the ruling, not impeach the judge.
Donald Trump has gotten some relief in some of his cases already. The
system is working. We don't need to turn the whole world upside down to
distract from the economic calamities they have brought upon us.
All this would be fun and games except the rhetorical assault by
Trump and Musk and our colleagues against the judiciary has turned into
something far more sinister in some quarters: death threats, bomb
threats, and online intimidation and harassment of judges. These judges
are currently targets of an onslaught of social media taunts and
attacks that call for their exile to GTMO or label them a national
security threat or traitors. Even worse, this campaign of vilification
has spread to their families, including attacks on a Federal judge's
daughter who had her photo and place of work posted on a social media
site by Elon Musk to his 290 million followers. These threats followed
an actual bomb threat targeting the sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy
Coney Barrett. It is a dangerous situation.
Now our colleagues want to pass the No Rogue Rulings Act which would
effectively ban Federal district courts from providing nationwide
relief against unlawful actions by the administration. Litigants could
request injunctive relief only with respect themselves.
So, for example, if the President establishes a church or bans
newspapers or imposes martial law, then each citizen in America would
have to bring his or her own case because the courts would not be able
to rule to strike down unconstitutional actions generally. That is
patently absurd, and we are going to be able to explain how this
legislation is a massive distraction
[[Page H1484]]
from the issues that are really facing America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Guest). Members are reminded to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for
this bill.
H.R. 1526, NORRA OF 2025 AS REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE
JUDICIARY ON MARCH 25, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of
dollars--
-----------------------------------
2025 2025-2030 2025-2035
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending (Outlays)........... a a a
Revenues............................ a a a
Increase or Decrease (-) in the a a a
Deficit............................
Spending Subject to Appropriation a a a
(Outlays)..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. CBO has no basis to estimate the budgetary effects of enacting H.R.
1526.
Increases net direct spending in any of the four
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2036? a
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2036? a
Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes
Mandate Effects
Contains intergovernmental mandate? No
Contains private-sector mandate? No
H.R. 1526 would limit the ability of U.S. district courts
to issue broad injunctive relief that applies to nonparties.
(Nonparties are individuals or entities not directly involved
in a legal case.) Under current law, parties often seek
injunctive and other forms of relief in federal courts to
challenge federal laws, executive actions, and regulations.
Injunctions and certain other forms of relief issued by
judges in those cases can sometimes apply to nonparties.
Under the bill, district courts could only issue
injunctions that provide relief to parties participating in
the case (and to nonparties that are represented by parties
in the case, such as in a class action). In a case brought by
two or more state governments located in different circuits,
H.R. 1526 would allow for a three-judge panel to provide
injunctive relief that would otherwise be prohibited by the
bill.
H.R. 1526 would not block district courts from issuing
other forms of relief that can affect nonparties. For
example, a district court could still vacate an agency
action, such as by setting aside a new regulation, which
could have similar effects on nonparties as injunctive
relief.
Because many federal actions, such as executive orders and
regulations promulgated by agencies, affect direct spending,
revenues, and spending subject to appropriation, CBO expects
that enacting the bill could have significant budgetary
effects, depending on the extent to which judges choose to
rely instead on other types of relief like vacatur. CBO
cannot predict what actions will be litigated or the
decisions that judges will make. Accordingly, CBO has no
basis for estimating the budgetary effects of H.R. 1526.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jon Sperl. The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director
of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, all across the country, at record levels, activist
judges are impeding President Trump's America First agenda with
nationwide injunctions, depriving the American people of the changes
they demanded in November.
To put how unprecedented this is into perspective, President Trump
has faced more than twice as many nationwide injunctions as Presidents
Bush, Obama, and Biden combined. In addition, more than 90 percent of
these nationwide injunctions have been issued by Democrat appointed
judges.
I am calling this what it is: weaponized political lawfare.
There are 677 district court judgeships nationwide, and as of now, if
just one of these judges decides to block an executive action, they can
singlehandedly halt the President's agenda.
I am sure our Founders did not envision this extreme constitutional
overreach from the judicial branch. Fortunately, Congressman Issa's No
Rogue Rulings Act will correct this discrepancy by ensuring that
district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions.
The American people demand sweeping change from us. From cutting
waste, fraud, and abuse in our bloated Federal Government to deporting
the millions of illegal alien invaders, we need to make progress.
Right now, a single district court judge can impede this progress on
a whim, essentially holding the America First agenda hostage
indefinitely. This must end.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting
``yes'' on the No Rogue Rulings Act to stop this judicial tyranny from
harming the American people.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
{time} 1545
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526, a bill
that would prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide
injunctions.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want you to believe that
somehow these nationwide injunctions being issued by courts across the
country against Donald Trump's illegal and unconstitutional actions are
unfair. Well, here is the message. If you don't like the injunctions,
don't do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That is simple.
Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our
democracy and holding the political branches accountable. Without them,
thousands or millions of people could be harmed by these illegal or
unconstitutional government policies.
Just look at Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship. In
a lawsuit brought in my home State of Washington, a Reagan-appointed
Federal judge--not a Democratic-appointed Federal judge, a Reagan-
appointed Federal judge--ruled that the order was blatantly
unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment plainly states that all
persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens.
What is next, stripping citizenship from U.S. citizens? That is in
the Trump extremist playbook, as well. So is apparently kidnapping and
disappearing people, including those with legal status, without any due
process, as well as getting rid of entire departments established by
Congress and suppressing freedom of speech and dissent.
These are the hallmarks of an authoritarian who wants to hold all
power, and the courts are doing what they are supposed to do and
issuing nationwide injunctions against this kind of abuse of power.
Somehow, my colleagues never complained about nationwide injunctions
when dozens were issued against former Presidents Obama and Biden, but
now that it is against Donald Trump, they want to rig the rules to give
the President free rein to do whatever he wants, regardless of whether
it is illegal or unconstitutional.
Well, get this: We do not have kings in America.
Vote ``no'' on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Onder).
Mr. ONDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the No Rogue Rulings
Act.
Historically, district court rulings only applied to the parties
before the court, but over the past 15 years, district courts have
increasingly asserted that their rulings apply nationwide, interfering
with the legitimate Article II powers of the President of the United
States.
We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d'etat.
In February alone, district judges issued more nationwide injunctions
against President Trump than against Bush, Obama, and Biden during
their entire administrations.
District judges from Democratic jurisdictions are preventing the
President from fulfilling his duty to keep us safe.
Last night, the Supreme Court called out judge shopping and reversed
an order issued by a Democrat-appointed D.C. judge that blocked the
Trump administration from removing violent Venezuelan gang members from
our country. The Supreme Court said that this case should never have
been brought in D.C. but rather in Texas where the individuals can file
individual petitions challenging their individual cases.
The Supreme Court can and should rein in these rogue courts. In the
meantime, the No Rogue Rulings Act rebalances the separation of powers
as the Founders intended.
[[Page H1485]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this critical
legislation.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``The Lost History
of the `Universal' Injunction,'' a law review article by Mila Sohoni
refuting what was just stated by the gentleman. The universal
injunction, the nationwide injunction, goes back at least to 1913 and
has been used repeatedly over the last century.
[From the Harvard Law Review]
The Lost History of the ``Universal'' Injunction
(Mila Sohoni)
The issuance of injunctions that reach beyond just the
plaintiffs has recently become the subject of a mounting wave
of censorious commentary, including by members of Congress, a
Supreme Court Justice, the Solicitor General, the Attorney
General, and the President. Critics of these ``universal''
injunctions have claimed that such injunctions are a recent
invention and that they exceed the power conferred by Article
III to decide ``Cases[ ] in . . . Equity.'' This Article
rebuts the proposition that the universal injunction is a
recent invention and that it violates Article III or the
traditional limits of equity as practiced in the federal
courts. As far back as 1913, the Supreme Court itself
enjoined federal officers from enforcing a federal statute
not just against the plaintiff, but against anyone, until the
Court had decided the case. If the Supreme Court can issue a
universal injunction against enforcement of a federal law,
then--as an Article III matter--so can a lower federal court.
Moreover, lower federal courts have been issuing injunctions
that reach beyond the plaintiffs as to state laws in cases
that date back more than a century, and the Supreme Court has
repeatedly approved of these injunctions. If Article III
allows such injunctions as to state laws, it a fortiori
allows such injunctions as to federal laws. Mapping these and
other pieces of the lost history of the universal injunction,
this Article demonstrates that the Article III objection to
the universal injunction should be retired and that the
unfolding efforts to outright strip the federal courts of the
tool of the universal injunction--whether by statutory fiat
or by a judicial redefinition of Article III--should halt.
But I would speak to the consciences of honorable men, and
ask, how they can venture . . . to recommend changes, which
may cut deep into the quick of remedial justice . . . .
Surely, they need not be told, how slow every good system of
laws must be in consolidating; and how easily the rashness of
an hour may destroy, what ages have scarcely cemented in a
solid form.
--Joseph Story, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1812-
1845)
introduction
The Trump Administration and the Obama Administration do
not seem to have much in common. But they have had one shared
foe: the ``universal'' injunction. Across both
administrations, federal district courts have issued a slew
of injunctions blocking the executive branch from enforcing
federal laws, regulations, or policies ``not only against the
plaintiff, but also against anyone,'' even in cases not
certified as class actions.
The federal courts' power to issue such injunctions--which
are variously called ``national,'' ``nationwide,''
``universal,'' and even ``cosmic''--is now under fire. In
Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas concurred separately to urge
the Court to take up the question of the legality of such
injunctions, suggesting that they are a modern innovation and
that they might fall outside the judicial power of Article
III courts. In 2018, the House Judiciary Committee of the
115th Congress released a markup of the Injunctive Authority
Clarification Act, which would curtail the authority of
federal courts to issue such injunctions.
In December 2018, the Solicitor General's Office called for
the Court to ``arrest'' this ``disturbing but accelerating
trend,'' which it cast as a ``rapidly expanding threat to the
respect that each coordinate Branch of our Nation's
government owes the others.'' In guidelines to Department of
Justice civil litigators, former Attorney General Jeff
Sessions referred to such injunctions as ``abuses of judicial
power,'' a ``threat[ ]'' to ``the rule of law,'' a ``danger
to our constitutional order,'' and a ``kind of judicial
activism [that] did not happen a single time in our first 175
years as a nation.'' Several states--including states that
earlier sought and won such injunctions--now contend that
``universal injunctions contradict the rest of Anglo-American
jurisprudence.'' The Trump White House, in its
characteristically measured tones, has hinted that the
practice is perhaps not beyond criticism. A growing vein of
scholarship concerning such injunctions has also developed.
This Article demonstrates that the universal injunction is
a tool with a more venerable lineage than heretofore
recognized. Surveying cases involving both state and federal
law and drawing on decisions by courts at all three levels of
the federal judicial hierarchy, this Article shows that
Article III courts have issued injunctions that extend beyond
just the plaintiff for well over a century. Building on this
lost history, this Article argues that the Article III
objection to the universal injunction should be retired and
that legislative efforts to outright strip the federal courts
of the substantive power to grant such injunctions should
halt.
Let us begin with the history. The universal injunction
against federal law did not ``emerg[e] for the first time in
the 1960s,'' as many critics of the universal injunction have
claimed. The Court itself issued a universal injunction in
1913, in the months preceding its opinion in Lewis Publishing
Co. v. Morgan, when it temporarily enjoined a federal statute
from being enforced not just against the plaintiffs but also
against ``other newspaper publishers.'' In the following
decade, the Court issued two other preliminary injunctions
that barred a federal law's enforcement beyond the plaintiffs
within a single judicial district, and in one of those cases
it specified that similarly broad final relief should issue.
Moreover, at least as far back as 1916, three-judge federal
courts issued injunctions against the enforcement of laws
that reached beyond the plaintiffs in those suits. The laws
thereby enjoined were state laws, not federal laws, but the
injunctions possessed the characteristic that matters most to
the Article III debate over the injunctive power: those
injunctions gave sweeping protection to nonplaintiffs who
would otherwise have been vulnerable to the law's
enforcement. When the state defendants in those suits
appealed directly to the Supreme Court--as procedural law at
the time allowed them to do--the Court on several occasions
affirmed the lower courts' injunctions, and sometimes did so
in single-sentence, unanimous, per curiam decisions. In one
important (though not unique) instance--Pierce v. Society of
Sisters--the Court affirmed a universal injunction barring
the enforcement of Oregon's compulsory public-schooling law
in a landmark precedent that remains good law to this day.
Not long thereafter, the universal injunction was brought
to bear upon federal agency action. In 1939, the D.C. Circuit
issued a universal injunction against federal agency action
in Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins. That highly consequential
decree altered the federal government's purchasing activities
with respect to the iron and steel industries for a whole
year in the run-up to America's entry into World War II. When
the Supreme Court took up the case in Perkins v. Lukens Steel
Co., the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and
were thus not entitled to seek any kind of relief, the steel
companies' suit, the Court held, ``contains no semblance of
these elements which go to make up a litigable controversy as
our law knows the concept.'' Crucially, Perkins left intact
the propriety of injunctions reaching beyond the plaintiffs
as remedies in cases brought by plaintiffs with standing,
indeed, Perkins is bookended by decisions in which the Court
continued to approve that practice. In Hague v. CIO, less
than a year before Perkins, the Court affirmed an injunction
that protected those who acted in sympathy with the
plaintiffs from enforcement of a city law; in West Virginia
State Board of Education v. Barnette, shortly after Perkins,
the Court affirmed an injunction that reached beyond both the
plaintiffs' children and the alleged plaintiff class to
shield ``any other children having religious scruples'' from
a state law requiring students to salute the American flag.
This history has important implications for how we should
understand Article III. Today, critics of the universal
injunction contend that Article III courts should adhere--or,
as they sometimes frame it, revert--to the rule that
injunctions must be solely ``plaintiff-protective.'' They
have urged the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules to
create such a rule by amending the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures. They have pressed Congress to institute such a
rule by statute--and indeed, the 115th Congress lately
considered doing just that, holding hearings on whether it
should forbid what the bill at issue styled as ``orders
purporting to restrain enforcement against non-parties''
in cases not certified as Rule 23 class actions. Justice
Thomas, as noted, has suggested that Article III may
forbid injunctions that reach beyond the plaintiffs.
We must be clear about one thing: it would be a sharp
departure from precedent and practice to treat Article III as
requiring the equitable remedial powers of federal courts to
be cabined in that manner. Article III confers a singular
power upon all federal courts to decide ``Cases[ ] in . . .
Equity.'' It does not allocate different types of equitable
remedial power to courts at different levels of the federal
judicial hierarchy, and it draws no line between state and
federal government defendants. That singular judicial power
must be uniformly interpreted, and its scope cannot sensibly
be regarded as hinging on the surmounting of hurdles to class
certification that were not created until 1966. If the
Supreme Court can issue a universal injunction against
enforcement of a federal law in a suit by a single plaintiff,
then so can a federal district court as an Article III
matter. If a federal district court issue a universal
injunction against enforcement of a state law in a suit by a
single plaintiff, a federal district court must also have the
power to issue such an injunction against enforcement of a
federal law as an Article III matter. There is only one
``judicial Power,'' and that power includes the power to
issue injunctions that protect those who are not plaintiffs.
Finally, some critics of the universal injunction have
invoked a strict form of originalism in support of their case
against that remedy. But the logic of that argument would
extend well beyond the universal injunction. At the time of
the Founding,
[[Page H1486]]
English officers were kept to heel not with injunctions
issued by the Chancellor in equity, but instead with common
law damages suits or ``prerogative'' writs (mandamus, quo
warranto, and so on) issued by the King's Bench--a common law
court. And American federal courts did not issue ``Young-
type'' injunctions against enforcement suits brought by state
and federal officers until well after the Founding. A
strictly originalist approach to the judicial power in equity
would therefore jettison not just the universal injunction--
it would equally undercut the propriety of an injunction that
protected just a single plaintiff from enforcement of even an
egregiously unconstitutional law by a government officer.
Such a straitened conception of the equitable power of
Article III courts cannot be squared with either a century-
plus of practice or with ``the implicit policies embodied in
Article III'' itself. Nor, fortunately, is that result
demanded by Grupo Mexicana de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond
Fund, Inc., for that decision rested not only on the meaning
of equity in England in 1789, but also on how American
federal courts treated that concept in decisions extending
through the twentieth century. Measured by that yardstick,
the universal injunction against federal law is
constitutionally legitimate.
At bottom, the current debate over the universal injunction
is as much a debate over the proper role of the federal
courts as it is a debate over the arcana of equitable
remedies. May courts decide disputes only for the parties
before them, or may they declare the law for nonparties, too?
This Article's contribution to that evergreen debate is to
show how, in the period from 1890 to 1943, the law-
declaration model animated and guided the actions of federal
courts as they issued decrees on myriad questions of public
law. Expanding the frame of our inquiry even by this much
reveals that the injunction reaching beyond the plaintiffs--
and the law-declaration model of the judicial power that this
remedy implies--is not some late-blooming efflorescence of
post-Warren Court judicial hubris. Rather, it is a tool that
developed in tandem with, and in support of, the regime of
routinized judicial review of state and federal official
action that we continue to live under today. Our government
is not a monarchy, and our federal judges are not Westminster
chancellors; in no small part, the one has followed from the
other.
The Article proceeds in six Parts. Part I maps how the
current discourse concerning universal injunctions has
gerrymandered the analysis of judicial power and has thereby
cast undue doubt on the propriety of this remedy. Part II
explores how the Supreme Court in the 1890s endorsed an
expansive view of the powers of federal courts to control the
rights of nonparties through injunctive decrees. Part III
describes injunctions against enforcement of federal statutes
issued by the Court itself in the 1910s and 1920s and
examines their implications for the Article III analysis.
Part IV describes injunctions against enforcement of state
law issued by lower federal courts from the 1910s through the
1930s and then similarly outlines their implications for the
Article III analysis. Part V turns to federal agency action,
focusing specifically on Perkins and two cases involving
state and local laws that are important for understanding
Perkins; this Part spans the 1939-1943 period.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the link to the entire document can be found
here: <a href='https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/920-
1009__Online.pdf'>https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/920-
1009__Online.pdf</a>.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
Internet.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the judicial branch ensures that
people, corporations, and even other branches of government follow the
law, and if a President does something illegal, which this President is
famous for, the only way for the courts to prevent thousands of people
from being harmed is to order a nationwide injunction that stops him
from doing that illegal thing.
It is essential to our democracy that the courts can serve as a check
on a President who is trampling people's rights.
While proponents of the bill say that each aggrieved person should
bring their own case, that just does not make sense. There is no way
that each of the thousands of people harmed could pay for their own
lawyer, get into a courtroom, and try their own case.
Aside from the difficulty and cost to everyone, our courts could
never handle that volume of cases. With dockets already bursting at the
seams, justice would be delayed. It would be so delayed that it would
be denied. It would be inefficient, cost prohibitive, and unfair.
That is what Republicans want because Federal courts keep ruling
against Trump's unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions.
Therefore, they are trying to hamstring the courts so that Trump can't
be stopped.
We need our courts to continue to serve as a bulwark of democracy
against the Trump administration's flood of illegal actions. That is
why I rise today in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 2, 2025, letter
addressed to Pam Bondi from 500 law firms and lawyers across the
Nation.
April 2, 2025.
Hon. Pamela Bondi,
Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Bondi: We are members of the legal
profession and entities that provide legal representation and
work in law. We do not agree on all matters and, in fact, at
times have been or are adverse to each other in court or
other professional settings. Despite our differences, we all
share a commitment to the United States Constitution, the
rule of law, and the role of the legal system in protecting
the rights of all people and ensuring all of us can have our
day in court. This commitment to the Constitution and the
rule of law requires that lawyers be able to operate with
independence, without fear of retaliation for bringing
lawsuits in good faith, and without attempts to deter
recourse to the legal system.
We write to you, as the nation's highest ranking legal
official, out of deep concern regarding a number of actions
that the President of the United States and his
administration have taken and a number of statements
targeting lawyers and the legal profession.
The following are illustrative examples of the concerning
actions and statements:
On February 25, 2025, the President issued a memo titled
``Suspension of Security Clearances and Evaluation of
Government Contracts'' targeting Covington & Burling LLP.
On March 6, 2025, the President issued a memo titled
``Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.''
On March 11, 2025, the President issued a memo titled
``Ensuring the Enforcement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
65(c),'' aiming to make it harder for organizations,
communities, and individuals to enforce their rights.
On March 14, 2025, at the Department of Justice, the
President called his courtroom opponents ``scum,'' judges
``corrupt,'' and prosecutors ``deranged.''
On March 14, 2025, the President issued a memo titled
``Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.''
On March 22, 2025, the President issued a memo titled
``Rescinding Security Clearances and Access to Classified
Information from Specified Individuals.''
On March 22, 2025, the President sent a memo to Attorney
General Pam Bondi titled ``Preventing Abuses of the Legal
System and the Federal Court.''
It is your responsibility, as the lawyer ultimately
entrusted with the representation of the United States in
legal matters, to oppose attacks on the legal profession, on
judges, and on the rule of law and to ensure that the
Department of Justice uses its full power to protect the
legal profession and equal justice under law for all people.
Attacking legal advocates based on the positions they take
in good faith litigation or based on who their clients are or
have been is inconsistent with our nation's values and with
the Constitution's contemplation of the functioning of the
judicial branch. Indeed before the founding of the United
States, John Adams, an ardent supporter of American
independence and someone who opposed King George III,
famously represented the British crown's own soldiers
involved in the Boston Massacre--driven by an unwavering
commitment to fair process and equal justice.
During your confirmation hearings earlier this year before
the United States Senate, you pledged to ensure that there
was ``confidence and integrity'' in the United States
Department of Justice and stated that you opposed the
``partisan weaponization'' of the Department. It is incumbent
on you to use all of the tools available to you to preserve
and protect the independence and integrity of the legal
profession, including opposing the use of the federal
government to attack lawyers, law firms, and legal
organizations for engaging in good faith representation of
their clients.
Respectfully yours,
ORGANIZATIONS AND FIRMS
Acacia Center for Justice; Access Justice Brooklyn; ACLU of
Massachusetts; Advocates for Trans Equality; Aguilar Monett
Law, P.L.L.C.; AH Law Firm, PLLC; Al Otro Lado; Ali &
Lockwood, LLP; Alliance for Justice; Altshuler Berzon, LLP;
Alyssa Rodriguez Center for Gender Justice; American Civil
Liberties Union; American Constitution Society; American
Gateways; American Immigration Council; American Immigration
Lawyers Association; American Oversight; Americans United for
Separation of Church and State; Amica Center for Immigrant;
Rights; Amsale Aberra Law, PLLC.
Animal and Earth Advocates; Ann Fromholz, The Fromholz
Firm, PLC; Ariel Law; Arseneault & Fassett, LLC; Asian
Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC; Asian Law Caucus; Autistic
Self Advocacy Network; Barbosa Group; Beckner Immigration
Law, PLLC; Bendit Weinstock, P.A.; Bennett Law Firm; Bernard
M. Resnick, Esq. P.C.; Blue Cedar Law, LLC; Bopp & Guecia;
Bravo
[[Page H1487]]
Schrager, LLP; Brennan Center for Justice; Brown, Goldstein &
Levy, LLP; Calderone McKay, LLC; Candy's Mobile Soup Kitchen;
Caryn Groedel & Associates Co,, LPA.
Cascadia Cross Border Law Group; Center for Biological
Diversity; Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice;
Center for Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity; Center for
Elder Law & Justice; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies;
Center for HIV Law and Policy; Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law; Center for International Environmental
Law; Center for Medicare Advocacy; Center for Public
Representation; Center for Reproductive Rights; Chandler
McNulty, LLP; Chiave Law, LLC; Children's Law Center;
Christopher Pioch and Associates; Cipollone Legal Consults
LLC; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington;
Clements Employment Law, PC; Collective Action Lab, LLC;
Commisso Law, P.C.
Conklin Immigration Law, LLC; Constitutional Accountability
Center; Council for Global Equality; Court Accountability
Action; Courts Matter Illinois; Criss and Rousseau Law Firm,
L.L.P.; Critical Legal Collective; Crossroads Highway
Products, LLC; Dane Shulman Associates, LLC; Daniel Kramer,
Kramer Trial Lawyers APC; Debski Law; Decision Point Strategy
Group, LLC; Decisive Discovery; Del Camino Jesuit Border
Ministries; Demand Justice; Democracy Forward Foundation;
Derrick Law Group; Diehl & Weger, AAL, ALC; Dignidad;
Disability Law United; Disability Rights Bar Association.
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund; DK Global
Consulting; DLGPA; Donahue, Goldberg & Herzog; Dryer &
Peterson, P.C.; Earthjustice; Edward J. Ungvarsky, Ungvarsky
Law, PLLC; Edwards, McLeod & Money, P.C.; Edzant Price LLP;
Einstein & Habbeshaw P.C.; Electronic Frontier Foundation;
Elias Law Group, LLP; Entre Hermanos; Environmental Integrity
Project; Episcopal Churches of the Big Bend; Equal Justice
Society; Equal Rights Advocates Equality California; Equality
Legal Action Fund; Erie County Bar Association Volunteer
Lawyers Project; Erin B. Shank, P.C.; Experience Justice.
Florida Immigration Law and Justice Center; Florida Justice
Institute; Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality;
Friedman & Associates P.C.; Friedman Gilbert + Gerhardstein;
G. Allan Van Fleet, P.C.; GenDemocracy; Glad Law LLC;
Gonzalez Law Offices, Inc.; Green Energy Law, LLC; Grimes Law
Firm; Grossman Young & Hammond, LLC; Hartman Law Group;
Hepworth Holzer, LLP; HLAS; Hopkins-Laster Law Office; Hull,
PC; Human Rights First; Hykel Law, LLC; Immigrant, ARC;
Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef).
Immigration Equality; Immigration Law & Justice New York;
Impact Fund; Indivisible Tri-Valley (California/Bay Area);
Innovation Law Lab; InReach (fka AsylumConnect);
International Refugee Assistance Project; J. Pace Law, PLLC;
Jahn Law Office LLC; James & Hoffman, P.C.; James E. Iniguez;
JLM Partners; Johnston George LLP; Journey's End Refugee
Services; Julie King, King Business and Patent Law, PLLC;
JustCause; Justice in Aging; Justice in Motion; Kakalec Law
PLLC; Kaplan Law Firm, PLLC; Kat Bond Law; Kathy Perkins LLC;
Keating Brown PLLC; King Business and Patent Law, PLLC; Klein
LLC.
Krantz and Berman LLP; Lance Conklin, Conklin Immigration
Law, LLC; Lane Law Associates; Langsley Mills Law LLC;
LatinoJustice PRLDEF; Lauri Waldman Ross P.A.; Law Office
Marcia Conrad; Law Office of Amanda L. Smith, PLLC; Law
Office of Arnie Rodnick; Law Office of Andrea Marcus, APC;
Law Office of David M. Goldman; Law Office of Denise
Lanchantin Dwyer LLC; Law Office of James B. Cronon, LLC; Law
Office of James F. Lentz; Law Office of Jeanett P. Henry; Law
Office of John Oleske; Law Office of Judith Rosenberg; Law
Office of Julie Low; Law Office of Kara Jennings, LLC; Law
Office of Kathleen S. Lane; Law Office of Kenneth R. Ormes;
Law Office of Kim McCormick, PLLC; Law Office of Leonard A.
Englander, Esq., LLC; Law Office of Mary Ellen Sach; Law
Office of Michele A. Santucci.
Law Office of Nancy Grim; Law Office of Patavee Vanadilok,
P.C.; Law Office of Patricia M. Corrales; Law Office of Paul
L. Spaulding, PC; Law Office of Paul O'Dwyer P.C.; Law Office
of Peter W. Hill; Law Office of Sandra Gillies; Law Office of
Suzanne Bryant; Law Office of Charles H. Montange; Law
Offices of Dawson, Dawson and Dawson, PLLC; Law Offices of
Diane J.N. Morin, Inc.; Law Office of Eric A. Greenwald; Law
Office of John Kostyack, PLLC; Law Offices of Mark J. Yost,
APC; Law Offices of Michael V. Kern, Chartered; Law Offices
of Peter J. Crosby; Law Offices of Robert D. Richman; Law
Offices of Robert P. Gaffney; Law Offices of Stuart Levine,
LLC; LawQuant LLC; Lawyering Project Inc.; Lawyers Defending
American Democracy; Lawyers for Good Government; Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; Legacy
Estate Planning & Elder Law PLC; Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo;
Legal Aid Justice Center; Legal Key Partnership for Health
and Justice; Leung Law PLLC; Long Beach Alliance for Clean
Energy; Lyons & Salky Law, LLP; Lyons Legal Group; M. Ali
Zakaria & Associates, PC; Margaret Mazanec Law Office, LLC;
Margolis & Cross; Marshall & Saunders, P.S.; Martens+
Associates; MaryRose Ebos Law Professional Corporation; Mason
LLP; McElfresh Law, Inc.; McGettrick Law, PLLC; McGill & Co.,
P.C.; McIfill Consulting LLC/La Maison Michelle Retreats;
Mehri & Skalet, PLLC; Melnik Legal, PLLC.
MetroWest Legal Services; MHK Dispute Resolution Services,
LC; Millennium Legal; Minority Business Enterprise Legal
Defense and Education Fund (MBELDEF); MM Spencer Law Offices;
Multiforum Advocacy Solutions; National Association of
Consumer Advocates; National Capital Legal Services; National
Center for Law and Economic Justice; National Consumer Law
Center (on behalf of its low-income clients); National
Consumers League; National Disabled Legal Professionals
Association; National Employment Law Project; National
Employment Lawyers Association/New York; National Health Law
Program.
National Housing Law Project; National Immigrant Justice
Center; National Immigration Law Center; National Immigration
Project; National Lawyers Guild Los Angeles; National Legal
Aid & Defender Association; National LGBTQ+ Bar Association;
National Women's Law Center; Network for Public Health Law;
New Counsel PLC; New York Lawyers for the Public Interest;
Newman<lm-bond> McNulty LLC; Nguyen Lawyers, ALC; Nichols
Law; North American Climate, Conservation, and Environment;
Northeastern University School of Law; Oasis Legal Services;
Oceana, Inc.; ORourke Law; Outten & Golden LLP; Owner-
Attorney of Law Office.
Pathway for Immigrant Workers; Paul A. Nelson, PA; People
For the American Way; Perrin Law Office; Peter Romer-Friedman
Law PLLC; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Prison
Law Office; Professional Corporation; Progressive State
Leaders Committee; Project On Government Oversight; Public
Advocacy for Kids (PAK); Public Citizen; Public Counsel;
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; Public
Knowledge; Public Rights Project; Q, Esq. PLLC; Ramona
Ortega, Rhia Ventures; Ratkowski Law PLLC; Ray Law
International P.C.; Reid Levin, PLLC; Reilly Law, PLC; Relman
Colfax PLLC; Represent.Us of New Jersey.
Ritz Clark & Ben-ASher LLP; Rivas Immigration Law PS;
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights; Roberto E. Quijano; Rocky
Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network; Roger Greenbaum Equity
Law & Mediation; Romanette Legal PLLC; Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld; Rosenblum Immigration Law, PLLC; Rourke & Rosenberg
LLC; Rural Law Center of New York; Salazar Law & Mediations;
Salvador Colon, PC; Sandven Consulting, LLC; Santulli Schudda
Law Office, LLC; Sarah Ward Law PLLC; Schenck and Long;
Shames & Litwin; Shames & Litwin; Sharma Law PLLC; Sharon
Powell, Powell Law PLLC; Sharp Law Firm, P.A.; Sherry Jones,
P.A.; Shreefer Law Firm, LLC; Silver State Equality; Silvix
Resources.
Social Justice Legal Foundation; Society for the Rule of
Law Institute; Solomon Law Firm, PLLC; South Carolina
Appleseed Legal Justice Center; Southeastern Law LLC;
Southend Indivisible, King County, WA; Souza Immigration Law
PLLC; Standifer Law LLC; State Democracy Defenders Fund;
Staton & Nolan, LLC; Steinhoff Law; Stellar 5 Legal, LLC;
Steven M. Schneebaum, P.C.; Susan Brunner LLC; Susan M. Swan,
Swan Employment Law; Swanson Law, PLLC; Systems Change
Consulting; Tennessee Justice for Our Neighbors; Texas Civil
Rights Project; Texas Immigration Law Council.
The Advocates for Human Rights; The Bricks Law Firm, P.C.;
The Chandra Law Firm LLC; The Collaborative Law and Justice
Center; The Coppola Firm; The Day Law Practice, LLC; The
Disability Information Network; The Door Legal Services
Center; The Law Office of Brett E Marston; The Law Office of
Elliot P. Forhan; The Law Office of Leslie A. Butler, PLLC;
The Law Office of Timothy J. Deffet; The Price Law Firm; The
Public Interest Law Project; The Right to Immigration
Institute; The Shattuck Law Office LLC; Third Act Lawyers;
Towards Justice; Trager Law Firm, PLLC; Trine Law Firm LLC;
Turner & Turner, Attorneys at Law; Tzedek DC.
Untiedt Dabdoub, PLLC; Urban Justice Center; Urofsky Legal
Advisory Services, PLLC; VECINA; Vera Institute of Justice;
Vermont Asylum Assistance Project; VIDAS; Virginia Poverty
Law Center; VKV Law Group, LLC; Vogele Law PLLC; Volunteer
Lawyers Project of CNY, Inc.; Walden Law, PLLC; Washington
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Weiner
Law; Welch ADR; Western New York Law Center, Inc.; William E.
Morris Institute for Justice; Women & Justice Issues; Women
Lawyers On Guard Action Network, Inc.; Worksafe; Wynne &
Wynne, Austin.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, a link to the entire document
can be found here: <a href='https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/
2025/04/Final-Letter-Regarding-Protecting-the-Legal-Profession__-
4'>https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/
2025/04/Final-Letter-Regarding-Protecting-the-Legal-Profession__-
4</a>.2.25-Upd-1.pdf.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Both Democrats and some Republicans have assailed the clearly
unlawful nature of this trade war instituted by President Trump based
on tariffs against the entire world except for Vladimir Putin in
Russia, and Congress has the power under Article I of the Constitution
to regulate commerce internationally. We have the power over tariffs.
[[Page H1488]]
The President purportedly is asserting powers under a statute which
applies to emergencies in extraordinary and unusual situations. Then he
said this has been going on for decade after decade.
Well, then how could that be an emergency? How could that be
extraordinary and unusual?
There will be a lawsuit on this, and what our colleagues are saying
is that if there is a bipartisan lawsuit that goes to court which stops
these tariffs that are crippling businesses and farmers and wiping out
people's retirements across the country, and if they succeed in one
district, say, in Minnesota or Wisconsin or New York, you have to go to
every one of 94 different districts in the country to get the benefit
of that. That is what they want to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I did ask unanimous consent that all Members
be able to place extraneous material in the Record. I guess they are
taking me up on it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Schmidt).
Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
bringing us this important piece of legislation.
I haven't been here very long in this body, but I have learned
something, and it is amplified today. That is that this town has a
remarkable ability to snatch disagreement out of the jaws of consensus.
This is an issue that liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers have
both said is a problem that we ought to address.
Justice Kagan has been quoted widely as having said that it just
cannot be the case that a single district court judge can hold up
Federal policy for the lengthy period of time nationwide that it takes
for the ordinary appeals process to run.
On the other end, Justice Gorsuch has suggested that these nationwide
injunctions bear a remarkable similarity to a step in the legislative,
not judicial, process.
In our branch of government, we had Democrats in both bodies of the
legislative branch who proposed legislation just a Congress ago saying
this is a problem we ought to deal with. Their legislation looked a lot
like part of this bill, three-judge panels. Now, we have Republicans
saying the same thing.
We ought to agree this is just the right thing to do as a matter of
public policy, not because of who is in the White House or who is the
plaintiff bringing a particular lawsuit.
Look, district courts are supposed to resolve disputes between
litigants. If we adopt this thing and make it law, there is no doubt
any citizen who can walk into court today can still walk into court and
get relief for anything they are entitled to relief for. What they
can't do is get a district court judge to order that an entire Federal
policy nationwide be disabled.
There is still a relief valve because we added an amendment in
committee that allows States to go into court to seek that type of
nationwide relief. Why? It is because States are unique. It is not the
national association of people who lost last year's election. It is a
State organized under our Constitution that has a unique role in our
Federal system and an interest in nationwide relief.
We ought to adopt this bill and do what everybody agrees is the right
thing.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is the most lawless
in American history. That is why so many of his policies are being
blocked through nationwide injunctions.
Republicans see this as evidence of some liberal plot among the
judiciary, but the judges who have ruled against him, some appointed by
such noted liberals as George Bush and Ronald Reagan, are not part of
some grand conspiracy to stop the Trump agenda. They are following the
law and the facts wherever they lead them. In case after case, the law
and the facts are squarely against Donald Trump and his administration.
Whether it be his efforts to rewrite the 14th Amendment to eliminate
birthright citizenship or his scheme to deport immigrants without even
the barest hint of due process, the courts have properly acted as a
check on his power.
How do Republicans respond? They respond not by urging the
administration to stay on the right side of the law and the
Constitution. No, they simply want to make it harder for anyone to hold
this lawless administration accountable.
This bill would prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide
injunctions even when the policies they find unlawful or
unconstitutional have nationwide effects. That would be as if Brown v.
Board of Education applied only to Brown. To do so would mean that no
one could ever effectively check any administration's power, and no
administration could ever be held accountable. The President would be a
real, not a would-be, dictator.
This bill is a dangerous threat to the rule of law. This bill is not
intended to curtail rogue judges from issuing rogue rulings. It is
intended to enable a rogue administration to continue to violate the
law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can just consider that every time
the other side speaks, they will be speaking in violation of our rules
about disparaging the President, and you need not say it each time, I
trust.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in order for the Supreme Court to issue
a ruling that affects the entire Nation, at least five Justices of the
Supreme Court must concur. Yet today, individual district court judges
are asserting this authority by themselves. This is an outrageous abuse
of public trust and judicial power, and it has opened a Pandora's box
that threatens the fundamental constitutional order.
The Congress is elected to make law, and the President is elected to
enforce it. The judiciary is appointed for the sole purpose of
resolving cases and controversies brought to it by individual injured
parties. Traditionally, that means an injured party seeks redress
through his local district court. This simple process ensures decisions
are limited to the unique circumstances of the individuals involved and
are restricted to cases within that district, subject to appeal first
to the circuit court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
This ensures that multiple voices contribute to the development of a
legal consensus before the matter reaches the Supreme Court. A single
district judge seizing this authority for himself utterly short-
circuits this process and does incalculable injury to our Constitution.
The fact that 92 percent of the nationwide injunctions blocking
President Trump have been issued by district court judges appointed by
Democrats, many with long histories of political activism, gravely
undermines the public's confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary.
I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has not set its own house in
order by restoring the judicial guardrails that protect us from judge
shopping, from political activism masquerading as judicial
deliberation, and from the usurpation of the constitutional powers
conferred upon the elected President and Congress.
{time} 1600
Four Justices have signaled their readiness to do so. Yet, without a
fifth, Congress is left with no alternative but to act on its own
authority. With this bill, it does.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, nationwide injunctions are something that my
friends across the aisle not only endorsed but took liberal advantage
of in the last administration.
Remember Judge Matt Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas? They
were lining up around the block to go forum shopping in his little
district because he was the only judge to get cases against Biden
there. Then Republicans praised the nationwide injunctions he issued.
The gentleman who just spoke signed a letter in praise of a
nationwide injunction that was offered by Judge
[[Page H1489]]
Kacsmaryk. If the gentleman wants to change his position, fine, but
please explain to us why the position has changed since the gentleman
was praising nationwide injunctions in the last administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Neguse).
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his
leadership, and I echo his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to listen to this debate and to hear the
arguments peddled by my colleagues that are hypocritical at best and
intellectually dishonest at worst.
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 4 years?
Where were they? Nowhere to be found.
I don't remember my colleagues bringing this bill to the floor. Of
course not. Spare me the feigned indignation.
Republicans talk of defending the Constitution when President Trump
is running roughshod over provision after provision. The majority talks
of judicial overreach as Republicans attack judges across the country.
Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. The majority
should read about the importance that our Framers and Founders placed
on judicial independence and reflect on what their conduct will do to
the administration of justice in the United States of America and to
the rule of law that has been sacrosanct for the better part of two-
and-a-half centuries.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should, but I cannot believe that my
colleagues would waste time on a dangerous bill like this instead of
addressing the consequential challenges that our country faces.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every colleague of mine to vote ``no'' on this
bill.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his astute
observations there and say that Judge Kacsmaryk was reversed several
times by higher courts.
We never came out and said, therefore, let's ban nationwide
injunctions. We did say we should reform judge shopping and forum
shopping. That is the real problem. Yet, it is not a problem if there
is a nationwide crisis created by illegal action by an executive that a
judge has the authority to counter that with an injunction and then it
gets appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, there are 677 Federal district judges, and they are just
that, judges. They are not the President of the United States. They are
not the person who put his name on the ballot and ran nationwide, got
77 million votes, won the electoral college, and is head of the
executive branch. They are judges, district judges.
I said this in committee. The real question ultimately is who gets to
decide: some district judge, or the guy who put his name on the ballot;
some bureaucrat, or the guy who ran for the office and got elected by
we the people?
That is the fundamental question. Guess what? We just got two
decisions from the United States Supreme Court who seemed to reinforce
that fundamental principle that the guy who runs and heads the
executive branch makes the decision.
The Supreme Court said 2 days ago that they are going to put a hold
on the time on this Judge Boasberg and this migrant issue that has been
with us for the last 3 weeks.
Then, yesterday, this unelected district judge in California who
thinks they get to decide how many probationary employees work in the
executive branch, not the guy who heads the executive branch, the
Supreme Court said ``no'' to that, those leftwing groups who were
seeking standing in that case.
Both decisions are wins for the Constitution, wins for the rule of
law, wins for the executive branch, and, maybe most importantly, wins
for common sense.
I think I have been pointing this out since Judge Boasberg issued his
order when he said: Turn the plane around. Bring back the bad guys.
Bring back the illegal migrants in this terrorist organization. Turn
the plane around. Bring them back. That makes no sense. It makes no
sense, and the American people understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Issa for this good piece of legislation that
we passed out of the committee, I think, 4 weeks ago. I thank
Representative Schmidt, who added the good amendment to it that I think
makes a good bill even stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to answer a couple of things raised by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend.
First of all, that is not what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme
Court simply said that this was not a case that should be going through
the Administrative Procedure Act under the Immigration and Nationality
Act. It should be done through a habeas corpus in the district of
confinement, in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Supreme Court affirmed that there must be
due process for people who were illegally taken out of this country and
sent to El Salvador.
Secondly, the gentleman gives us a false choice when he says: Who
gets to decide? Is it the person who puts his name on the ballot and
goes out and campaigns, or is it an unelected Federal district judge?
Decide what? If we are talking about deciding the constitutionality
of a law, obviously it is the judge under Marbury v. Madison. I know
that the distinguished gentleman from the Committee on the Judiciary
knows that the fact that Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by 2 million
votes is neither here, nor there.
Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by 7 million votes, and they still went
to court pretty much on a weekly basis to try to get Joe Biden's
legislation and his programs struck down. The majority believed in
judicial review then. We should understand that it is very convenient
for Republicans to say, all of a sudden, that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle don't believe in judicial review just because
they have the Presidency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, Article III of our Constitution vests judicial power of
the United States in the Supreme Court and lower courts.
The Constitution says that this power extends to all cases arising
under the Constitution or laws passed by Congress. This is a bedrock
principle of American democracy, and it is not up for debate.
Yet, now that the courts are blocking his unconstitutional and
unlawful actions, Donald Trump wants to claim the power for himself and
his administration. Trump does not subscribe to the principle of
judicial review, and he doesn't believe in the sanctity of the
Constitution. He cares only about himself and getting his own way.
Mr. Speaker, Trump and his followers are threatening judges with
impeachment and far worse. Bomb threats, harassing calls, and swatting
all send the same terrifying message: We know where you and your family
live, and you better get out of the President's way.
President Trump's attacks on the judiciary are clear violations of
his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, threats to judges and their families simply cannot be
tolerated, and Members of this body have a profound responsibility to
speak with one voice to condemn these reprehensible tactics. I implore
my Republican colleagues to set politics aside and do the right thing.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with important amendments to this bill.
My amendment would simply reaffirm the legislative branch's support
for its coequal branch and condemn attacks on all members of the
judiciary.
[[Page H1490]]
I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. James). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the No Rogue Rulings
Act, a bold and necessary step to rein in activist judges who have made
it their sole mission to obstruct the agenda of President Donald J.
Trump.
Let's be clear about what is at stake. In November 2024, the American
people gave President Trump a mandate to secure our borders, shrink a
bloated Federal bureaucracy, and put America first. He has acted
swiftly, with over 100 executive orders in just 3 months, to deliver on
those promises that he made to the American people.
Yet, what have we seen? Unelected judges have issued sweeping
nationwide injunctions to stop him at every turn. There have been 53
lawsuits already halting deportations of dangerous criminal aliens,
blocking cuts to wasteful spending, and tying the hands of a President
doing his best to protect America.
This isn't justice. It is judicial tyranny. The No Rogue Rulings Act
says that enough is enough. It is a simple, commonsense fix. No single
district judge should have the power to grind the entire Nation to a
halt with one rogue ruling.
Why should a single unelected judge override the votes of 80 million
Americans? This is not how our Constitution was designed. The Founding
Fathers gave Congress the power to check the courts, and it is time we
began using it.
Take Judge James Boasberg's ruling last month halting deportations of
Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. President Trump
invoked a law from 1798 to protect our streets, and one judge decided
that he knows better than the Commander in Chief.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to take our government back from the black-
robed bureaucrats. I support this bill, and I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Issa) for introducing it.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I note that what the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Ms. Boebert) is referring to is what has now been affirmed as an
inaccurate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. My colleagues on the
other side, in disparaging the President, keep using the word
``illegal.''
I ask that my Democratic Colleagues really reconsider. The minority
may disagree with the executive actions of the President. From time to
time, the court may disagree. Yet, in fact, not only are his actions
not illegal, but they are well within the reach of what any President
might well do in trying to defend the United States from enemies,
foreign and domestic.
We can disagree about the meaning of a law that has been on the books
for 225 years. We should not disparage the motives or the actions of
the chief executive simply because we disagree.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already rejected at
least two of the actions that Donald Trump has taken since he got in.
One was firing the executive director of the Office of Special Counsel.
He was reinstated.
The other was reinstating a $2.1 billion aid grant that was
essentially impounded and diverted by the administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).
Mr. SUBRAMANYAM. Mr. Speaker, let's take a step back and be clear on
what is going on here.
This administration maybe didn't have the votes or will to get
legislation through Congress, so it created these executive orders and
broke the law in doing so. Some of these orders are unconstitutional,
and that is why there have been so many injunctions to stop the
lawbreaking.
These injunctions were celebrated by the other side when they stopped
actions under the previous Democratic administrations. Yet, now that
President Trump is in office, this bill exists to help the President do
whatever he wants, even if it is unconstitutional.
I get asked a lot these days about what is going to happen when this
President ignores the courts. Wouldn't we have a constitutional crisis
on our hands?
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it easier for the President's actions to
go unchecked. By blocking nationwide injunctions, people will be
powerless to quickly stop illegal and unconstitutional actions.
This bill is simply another loyalty bill for the President, up there
with naming airports after him or putting his face on Mount Rushmore.
Loyalty to the President should not supersede the rule of law or
loyalty to uphold the Constitution. This bill doesn't just take power
away from judges, but it takes power away from the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring down a little bit of the tone and
remind everyone in this Chamber that the chief executive, since it was
George Washington, has been charged by Congress to be the first to
interpret the faithful execution of the Constitution and the amazing
amount of laws that have been passed in our nearly 250 years.
{time} 1615
During those decades, one after another, all the way back with
Marbury v. Madison, there have been disagreements and the Court has
interpreted, but those interpretations, including Brown v. Board of
Education, historically became nationwide when the High Court by a
majority ruled one direction or the other. That is the way our Founding
Fathers intended it to be.
The ranking member of the full committee is a scholar and a teacher,
a professor of this, and knows full well that we created under the
Constitution a Supreme Court and then we gave to this branch, to
Article I, to the Congress, the authority to create subordinated and
specialized or limited courts. Those courts of any sort are under the
Supreme Court because only the Supreme Court is to rule on the law of
the land.
Now, my colleagues have noted the last administration and the fact
that parties, including more than a dozen attorneys general, from time
to time came and asked for and may or may not have been granted
nationwide protection. This bill, as amended in committee, thoughtfully
amended, in fact, takes into consideration that there may be times in
which multiple States are represented before one judge. As long as that
judge is the nexus of at least one, and in the case of the District of
Columbia perhaps speaks for all, he or she should rule on behalf of all
the plaintiffs represented in front of them.
Let it be clear: The work of the Supreme Court is not just to
overturn one ruling by a judge. The Court most often in the 62 to 66
cases it takes per session, per year, rules primarily on when there is
a difference between the ruling in one and the ruling in another. It
rules very often because there needs to be a single voice for the law
of the land.
There doesn't always have to be. The fact is, if a plaintiff comes
and says they represent one of many unlawful aliens, criminals, or
terrorists who have been deported under a law that has been on the
books for more than 225 years, the judge has a right to rule if that
defendant has a legitimate nexus in their court, has a right to rule as
to that plaintiff or any others that come before him that have nexus,
but to rule that the President must turn an airplane around with
dangerous terrorists on it, why? Why would you do that?
The fact is, judges are shopped for. My colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, rightfully so, said that venue shopping has become a
problem. That is not limited to Republicans or Democrats. In fact, both
sides do it.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they do it in civil cases. They do
it all over the place. Lawyers are very good at it, but as the chairman
of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
Intelligence, and
[[Page H1491]]
the Internet and with the ranking member of the full committee here
today, it is our obligation to fine-tune the law so that, in fact,
these kinds of injustices don't happen. We are here today to fine-tune
the law to protect the Constitution and the intent of Congress for more
than 225 years.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Bell).
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress
but as the son of a police officer and as someone who spent nearly two
decades working in the justice system as a public defender, defense
attorney, judge, and as a prosecutor. I know what it means to uphold
the law, and I know what it looks like when the rule of law is under
attack.
This bill is not about judicial efficiency or fairness; it is about
power, raw, political power. The people who once cheered nationwide
injunctions when they served their agenda now want to eliminate them
because judges had the audacity to hold this administration
accountable.
It is a direct assault on judicial independence and many of my
Republican colleagues know it, but too many won't say it out loud for
fear of political retribution or a primary financed by Elon Musk. This
is not conservative, it is not constitutional, and history will
remember.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will answer my good friend, the chairman of the
subcommittee, about the remarks he just made.
He is correct that the President, of course, like Members of
Congress, must also interpret and enforce the Constitution. In fact,
that is the core part of the President's job, to take care that the
laws are faithfully executed, says Article II, not distorted or
rewritten, but to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That
doesn't negate the fact that under Marbury v. Madison, it is
emphatically the province and the duty of the Judicial Department to
say what the law is in the event of an actual case or controversy.
The gentleman invoked George Washington. There is a beautiful
portrait of Washington, the Trumbull portrait, that we have in the
rotunda and it is a picture of George Washington surrendering his
commission as the general of the Continental Forces, which Napoleon
said made him the greatest man ever, that he could have stayed on as a
dictator forever, and he gave up his power. He could have been
President forever, but he gave up his power.
When we compare that to Donald Trump who is saying he is going to run
for an unconstitutional and, yes, an illegal third term, that would be
an illegal third term for him to run again to try to take office, so
that is why we have courts in order to cabin the potentially limitless
ambitions of Presidents. That is why we don't have kings; we have
Presidents here.
Secondly, there seems to be a myth on the other side that if a
President campaigns on something, then it is constitutional and the
courts can't strike it down. So if the President campaigns on running
again for a third term, then it is okay. Where does it say that in the
Constitution? That can't be right. We are all bound by the Constitution
no matter what we say during the campaign. A person could run around
saying, ``I am going to be king,'' or if President Trump said, ``I will
be dictator on day one.'' No, you will not be dictator on day one under
the Constitution of the United States.
Why did the judge tell the administration to turn the planes around?
Because of the two most beautiful words in the English language, ``due
process.'' Because what they can do to noncitizens, they can do to
citizens. If they can sweep anybody off the street and say we are going
to send you to a torturous prison in El Salvador without any kind of
hearing at all, it can happen to citizens as well as noncitizens.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Harris of North Carolina). Members are
reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the
President.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Court ruled against the district
judge by a 5-4 ruling undoing this whole question of does the President
have the right to deport aliens. Yes. They said that there was a
possibility of bringing a case in Texas as to one or more of them. To
be honest, we have said that for quite a while that, in fact, there was
a procedure and that, in fact, the chief judge of the D.C. circuit
assigned himself four cases and made a decision that a chief judge
should know better than.
Now, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the right way to
deal with a judge that makes a bad ruling is, in fact, appeal it.
However, the right way to deal with judges who take cases, take another
case, take a total of four cases so far, and seem to rule very
predictably, even if inaccurately, against the Trump administration is,
in fact, to rein in the excesses.
We try to do this in a measured way. I might note for the speaker
that just today by a 7-2 overwhelming majority, the Court ruled, to no
surprise to this Congressman, that the President has the right to
dismiss probationary employees, even though an activist judge stayed
that and said that he didn't have that right, that somehow everyone
else can get rid of probationary employees, including the last
administration that summarily dismissed immigration judges on the last
days of the probationary period, and did so without seeing a nationwide
injunction.
There were plenty of opportunities to disagree, but I hope that my
colleagues, once again, as the speaker has so well stated, will stop
claiming that these are illegal actions when we simply agree or
disagree with the actions of the President and in many cases the Court
finds the President is well within his rights in faithfully executing
his obligations.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Goldman).
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, which is simply
an attempt by House Republicans to intimidate judges who issue rulings
that they simply don't like.
My colleagues concede that it is the Supreme Court which determines
what the law is. Well, in today's modern age, how do you get to the
Supreme Court? You go first to the district court, then through the
appeals court, and then up to the Supreme Court.
Now, there are many complaints that that takes too long. I agree, but
we are citing rulings on the other side of the aisle of Supreme Court
rulings on these very nationwide injunctions within a few weeks.
Even former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican star witness at our
committee hearing last week on this topic, conceded that nationwide
injunctions are appropriate in some cases. That is why this bill is not
about the substance. It is clear that the House Republicans have
completely abdicated their own constitutional duty to be a check and
balance on the President.
The only remaining check that is left in our separation of powers is
the courts, but it is not enough for my colleagues to hand over all of
their own authority to the President; they want to hand over the
judiciary branch's authority, too.
A fundamental principle of our Constitution is that the courts decide
what the law is, not Congress and not the President, even if he is
elected, which I would note for our friends down at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue is true for every single President.
My colleagues complain about the high number of nationwide
injunctions during the first 3 months of this Presidency. Rather than
blame the judges for that, I have an idea: Stop breaking the law. This
is a bad bill that gets us nowhere other than toward autocracy.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the gentleman is prepared to
close as am I, and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H1492]]
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, it occurs to me
that Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid should
have just denounced traditional activism and moved to change the
Federal rules of civil procedure: Always better to blame the judge than
to take responsibility for your own unlawful actions.
Mr. Speaker, I will close by quoting Thomas Jefferson who said during
the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts: ``A little patience, and we
shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and
the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to
its true principles.''
In the meantime, we are suffering the horrors and malignities of this
period, but if the game runs against us sometimes as it will, we must
have patience because it is a game where principles are at stake.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, as I close, since the ranking member so aptly
named a couple of famous quotes and famous movies, I might call
attention to the line: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The other side, just a few months ago, supported this legislation in
a more radical form than, in fact, we bring today. Thanks to
Congressman Schmidt and others on the committee, we have thoughtfully
amended this to make it limited, for which the ranking member and
others seem to claim that we were somehow being nefarious. No, we
weren't.
In the last cycle under President Biden, yes, half a dozen or so
attorneys general came and disagreed with the attempt to forgive $188
billion in student loans. There was a temporary injunction on behalf of
those multiple States. Lo and behold, the High Court stated and ruled
that, in fact, he didn't have the authority, saving us nearly $200
billion that was being given away by Joe Biden.
Not in any way deterred by that, President Biden bragged that he
circumvented it and did give away billions more. That is still
something being worked on by this body.
Presidents push the limits of their authority. President Biden
certainly did. President Obama famously said he didn't have the
authority to do things and then did them later and dared the Court to
stop him.
I think we have to come here and realize if we do our job, we are
drawing the appropriate balance on one of the two branches that we do
have an obligation to keep an eye on. We keep an eye on the executive
branch, and the minority being the branch not of the President
generally calls the strikes, the balls, and not the home runs. That is
okay. They do it, and they have been doing it for 250 years. I commend
them.
We also have an obligation to come together, to communicate, to not
have a failure to communicate, to realize that on behalf of the
American people, on behalf of the best interests of the High Court not
being swamped with an amazing amount of these, and not having future
Presidents find themselves deterred from executing what they believe is
best in a timely fashion, that we come together and vote this moderate
and, quite frankly, modest piece of legislation. It won't stop all
national injunctions, but it will define more narrowly when they can be
done. I hope we would do that.
I will close simply by saying Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White
Fleet out not necessarily having the money to get them back. Franklin
Delano Roosevelt pushed the bounds of the Constitution for what he
thought was right, including the incarceration of threats to our
democracy under this very act, and the Court affirmed that.
Presidents have seen reasons to do it. This President has seen an
onslaught, more than 10 million illegals, many of them actually here
from terrorist gangs, and he is trying to protect our Nation.
I would hope that instead of talking about Elon Musk and others, we
would come together to do something that we know if the next President
is of the other party, my colleagues will be supporting something that
looks amazingly like what we have in front of us today.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all who are watching and listening
take heed that this is a bill supported by the last administration and
should be supported by everyone in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further
consideration of H.R. 1526 is postponed.
____________________