Rules Committee · Apr 8, 2025
H.Amdt. 16: Its purpose is not yet published.
Adopted
With no one objecting, no names recorded
A Republican bill with 14 Republican cosponsors · See all 14 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 219–213
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
This Act, titled the "No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025," seeks to amend title 28 of the United States Code. It aims to limit the authority of United States district courts to issue injunctive relief. Under this proposal, district courts would generally be prohibited from issuing injunctions that affect anyone other than the specific parties in the case. However, an exception is made for cases brought by two or more States from different circuits challenging executive branch actions. In those specific instances, a randomly selected three-judge panel would have the authority to issue such orders.
Yes
- Scored +2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
By limiting federal district court injunctions to specific parties, it allows states to challenge executive actions through more concentrated multi-state litigation pathways.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Limiting the scope of injunctions may reduce the ability of individuals to seek systemic relief for grievances.
- Scored -3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill limits the authority of federal district courts to issue broad injunctions, potentially centralizing certain injunctive powers in specific three-judge panels.
- Scored -2
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The limitation on injunctive relief may restrict the ability of individuals to obtain broad legal remedies through the court system.
What Congress actually voted on
2 recorded votes have been taken on this bill. One of them decided something; the rest moved it along.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 219 yes · 213 no
04/09/2025 · Roll call 98 · recorded as “On Passage”
- The House: a last attempt to send the bill back to committee The minority party's final chance to change or stall a bill just before the vote on passage. It almost always fails; when it succeeds, the bill does not get its final vote that day. Motion to recommit rejected 212 yes · 217 no
04/09/2025 · Roll call 97 · recorded as “On Motion to Recommit”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Restriction of Injunctive Scope: Under Section 2(a), injunctions would be limited to the specific parties in a case or those represented in a representative capacity. This ensures that a court's order only applies to the people or entities directly involved in the lawsuit.
-
Specialized Review for Multi-State Cases: Section 2(b) provides a specific pathway for cases where two or more States from different circuits challenge the executive branch. This involves a three-judge panel that must consider the "interest of justice," "risk of irreparable harm to non-parties," and the "preservation of the constitutional separation of powers" when deciding whether to issue an order.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Limitation on Judicial Relief: Section 2(a) limits the ability of a district court to issue injunctions that affect anyone outside of the immediate parties in a case. This could prevent broad relief for people who are not direct parties to a specific lawsuit.
-
Specific Requirements for Multi-State Challenges: According to Section 2(b), if multiple States are involved in challenging the executive branch, the case must go to a specific three-judge panel selected through a random process rather than by a chief judge.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Limiting the scope of injunctions may reduce the ability of individuals to seek systemic relief for grievances.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — By limiting federal district court injunctions to specific parties, it allows states to challenge executive actions through more concentrated multi-state litigation pathways. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill limits the authority of federal district courts to issue broad injunctions, potentially centralizing certain injunctive powers in specific three-judge panels. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The limitation on injunctive relief may restrict the ability of individuals to obtain broad legal remedies through the court system.
- 4/10/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 4/9/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).
- On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 217 (Roll no. 97).
- The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
- Ms. Ross moved to recommit to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR H1550-1551)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1550-1552)
- Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the House resumed consideration of H.R. 1526.
- 4/8/2025
- The Chair announced that pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further proceedings on H.R. 1526 are postponed.
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1526.
- 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.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 294. (consideration: CR H1482; text: CR H1482)
- 4/7/2025
- Rules 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.
- 4/1/2025
- Rules 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.
- 3/25/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-40.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 27.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 3/24/2025
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- 3/21/2025
- 5 Cosponsors added.
- 3/5/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9.
- 2/24/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-HRES-282: 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.
- 119-HRES-294: 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.
Brian BabinRepublican · Texas
Lance GoodenRepublican · Texas
Clay HigginsRepublican · Louisiana
Mark HarrisRepublican · North Carolina
Anna Paulina LunaRepublican · Florida
Nick LaLotaRepublican · New York
Nicholas LangworthyRepublican · New York
Daniel MeuserRepublican · Pennsylvania
John McGuireRepublican · Virginia
Keith SelfRepublican · Texas
Derek SchmidtRepublican · Kansas
Claudia TenneyRepublican · New York
Derrick Van OrdenRepublican · Wisconsin
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas