We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
This bill limits the authority of federal district courts to issue injunctions.
Specifically, it prohibits a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.
SenateReceived in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
House floor actionsPursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the House resumed consideration of H.R. 1526.
Floor Vote
Passed the House
House floor actionsConsidered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 294. (consideration: CR H1482; text: CR H1482)
House floor actionsRules Committee Resolution H. Res. 294 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res. 28, H.R. 1526 and H.R. 22. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28.
House floor actionsRules Committee Resolution H. Res. 282 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28. The resolution also provides that H. Res. 23 and H. Res. 164 are laid on the table.
House floor actionsReported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-40.
House committee actionsCommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Library of CongressIntroduced in House
House floor actionsReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced
Committee
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.
What Congress Said
Members who spoke about this bill on the floor, in their own words from the Congressional Record.
Republicans14 spoke
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
I rise in opposition to this rule. As many of you might know, for over 2 years now I have been championing the cause to allow new female Members of Congress the right to vote. Some of the American people might be surprised that if you are a female Member and you have a child, that you can't vote.
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.
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.
First of all, I rise in full support of this rule. As I told my good friends in the Rules Committee today, you are not going to lecture me on compassion. You are not going to lecture me on being kind to the poor and the forgotten.
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.
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.
It is not easy to pass legislation around here. There is a process. It is not really easy to get elected, whether it is here or the Presidency. There is a lot of power that has been bestowed to those that are elected.
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.
The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of family values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to be able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican Members flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood, and voting by proxy.
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.
I want to start by saying welcome back to my friends across the aisle. It is really nice to have them back here in the people's House, especially after last week.
That promissory note was that he told the American people on day one, inflation would go down. Prices would go down on day one, he said. Instead, what the President has done is, unleashed an economic chaos on the American people.
I rise in opposition today to the Republicans' voter suppression act. This bill is not about election integrity. This is not about ensuring that only citizens vote. This is about making it impossible for people and new voters to vote.
My amendment would prevent this bill from being implemented unless we get certification that it would not bar a single married woman in this country who is eligible to vote from the ballot box.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I rise on behalf of the Dads Caucus in support of Representative Luna's and Representative Pettersen's proxy voting bill that will allow new parents to spend a limited time, 12 weeks, with a newborn child. That is all we are asking.
Literally, the Freedom Caucus could teach a clinic on Speaker hostage taking. If you don't like the bill, vote against it. Is the Freedom Caucus the only one with power? Is Chip Roy the only one who sits in these seats with power?
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 rise to explain why new moms cannot proxy vote. The issue is very simple, and the answer is even simpler to understand. It is because men don't have children.
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.
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.