The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on H.R. 1526, the “No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025” (NORRA), a bill designed to curtail the authority of federal district courts in issuing nationwide injunctions on April 7.
Key Provisions of NORRA
The bill seeks to amend Title 28 of the U.S. Code by limiting federal district courts’ ability to issue injunctive relief that extends beyond the parties directly involved in a case. Specifically:
- Restricting Nationwide Injunctions: Federal judges would be prohibited from issuing injunctions that apply nationwide unless a three-judge panel, selected randomly, determines it necessary in cases involving multiple states from different circuits.
- Appeals Process: Decisions made by these panels could be appealed either to the relevant circuit court or directly to the Supreme Court.
- Preservation of Separation of Powers: The bill emphasizes considerations such as justice, irreparable harm to non-parties, and maintaining constitutional boundaries between branches of government.
Bill sponsor Rep. Darrell Issa has framed NORRA as a response to what he calls “judicial tyranny,” where judges use their authority to obstruct policies enacted by the executive branch. He contends that nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process by allowing individual judges to impose their views on the entire nation.
However, the bill goes against the fundamental checks and balances within the U.S. system. The Constitution emphasizes checks and balances among the branches of government. Courts play a critical role in ensuring that executive actions comply with constitutional limits.
Although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, judicial review—the power to assess the constitutionality of legislative or executive actions—was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). This doctrine allows courts to invalidate government actions that violate constitutional principles. Courts are expected to act independently of Congress and the President in interpreting constitutional questions.
Who is the writer of this article to decide that ” bill goes against the fundamental checks and balances within the U.S. system” ?
That’s exactly what it does. And if you think otherwise, you’re drinking the kool-aid. I don’t want a country where presidents can do whatever they want like a king. It’s un-American in every way imaginable.