Congress·Passed House·H.R. 1526

House Passes No Rogue Rulings Act, Stripping Single Judges of Power to Block National Policies

NORRA of 2025

Also known as: No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025

12 months ago·View on Congress.gov

⏸

Stalled

No legislative action in over 90 days.

Legislative Progress

✓ House

219–213

Senate

President

Law

Key Points

This bill changes how federal courts work by stopping a single judge from blocking a government policy for the whole country. Currently, one judge can pause a national law everywhere, but this would limit their ruling to only the people actually involved in the lawsuit.
From policy text
“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.”
View in full text
If multiple states from different regions challenge a rule made by the executive branch, the case would be handled by a special panel of three randomly selected judges. This panel is the only group that would have the power to block a policy nationwide.
From policy text
“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)”
View in full text
The change aims to stop "judge shopping," which is when people file lawsuits in specific towns where they think a certain judge will rule in their favor. It ensures that major decisions affecting the entire U.S. require more than one judge's approval.
From policy text
“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)”
View in full text
If a case goes to the special three-judge panel, the decision can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. This could speed up the process for deciding whether a controversial national policy is legal or not.
From policy text
“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.”
View in full text

Criminal JusticeCivil Rights

Impact Analysis

Personal Impact

Who is affectedScoreImpactCertaintyScopeDurationSentiment

Scores: 1 = low, 5 = highSentiment: -5 to +5 (net benefit)

Milestones

4 milestones22 actions

Apr 10, 2025Senate

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Apr 9, 2025House

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Apr 9, 2025House

On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).

Apr 9, 2025

Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).

Apr 9, 2025House

On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 217 (Roll no. 97).

What Happens Next

Projected impacts based on AI analysis

2025

Senate Judiciary Committee reviews the bill

The bill still needs to pass the Senate before it can become law. Senate debate and potential amendments could change key provisions.

Vote Results

2 votes

HouseFailedAmendmentApr 9, 2025

On Motion to Recommit

212

217

Democrat

212 – 0 · 1

Republican

0 – 217 · 3

View full roll call

HousePassedPassageApr 9, 2025

On Passage

219

213

Democrat

0 – 212 · 1

Republican

219 – 1

View full roll call

Related News

2 articles

Courthouse News Service·12 months ago

GOP infighting over bill to restrict nationwide injunctions

The House advanced Rep. Darrell Issa’s 'No Rogue Rulings Act,' which prevents courts from issuing nationally binding orders. The measure saw a rare GOP defection from Rep. Mike Turner, who argued the bill 'irreversibly' strips individual rights and sets a dangerous precedent.

ABC News 4·12 months ago

House GOP targets judicial system with 'No Rogue Rulings Act' as Trump's power is challenged

Republicans introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act to limit the authority of federal judges to impose nationwide injunctions. The bill is a response to the high volume of legal challenges against President Trump's executive orders in his first months in office.

Related Bills

2 bills

H.Res. 282Related bill

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ''Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; providing for consideration of 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; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.

Apr 1 — Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

H.Res. 294Related bill

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions"; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications"; providing for consideration of 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; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.

Apr 8 — Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.