US Chamber limits national judicial decisions, aiming for judges who challenge Trump

WASHINGTON-The House of Representatives of the US approved on Wednesday (9) legislation that would prohibit federal judges from issuing national decisions, as part of a republican campaign to attack judges who have barred some executive orders by President Donald Trump.

The project, approved throughout the party lines with a vote of 219-213, would limit the judges of district courts to issue restricted orders that apply to the parties involved in a specific process, rather than broader orders that can block a policy or action across the country. He would make an exception to cases presented by multiple states, which would need to be analyzed by a panel of three judges.

The proposal faces little chance of becoming law due to obstacles in the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to join Republicans to allow their advancement. So far, similar projects have not been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Chamber’s Republicans frame the legislation, called the “law against arbitrary decisions” (in Rogue Rulings Act), as a necessary constitutional control against what they claim to be an abuse of power by judges who try to exert political influence from the court.

Citing an increase in national sentences since Trump took office, Republican legislators have argued that a federal judge not elected in a district should not have the power to prevent the executive from implementing national policies, a responsibility that, they said, should be left to the courts of appeal or to the Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court should reach a majority to make something national law, and yet a single district judge believes it can do this,” said Deputy Darrell Issa, California Republican, who introduced the bill on Wednesday in the House plenary.

Democrats have argued that federal judges are simply fulfilling their duty to review executive actions. They claim that Trump has been the subject of a flood of decisions because he has promoted aggressive policies that exceed the object of his authority and violate the law.

“If it looks an incredible number of cases lost in less than 100 days, remember that Trump is involved in a record number of illegal actions at an impressive speed never seen before in US history,” said Maryland Deputy Jamie Raskin, the main democrat in the Judiciary Committee.

National decisions, in which judges interrupt policies while their legality is evaluated in the courts, have long been used by judges to bar actions of both republican democratic administrations. Its use grew during the second term of President Barack Obama and exploded during Trump’s first term, when 64 injunctions were issued against his administration’s policies, according to a 2024 Harvard Law Review survey.

During the term of President Joe Biden, judges used injunctions to block a federal aircraft masks, a covid-19 vaccine mandate for federal contractors and parts of a student debt relief plan.

Members of both parties have complained about national injunctions for years, and some Supreme Court judges have expressed skepticism about practice. But republican anger on the use of injunctions reached the peak during Trump’s second term after a series of decisions contrary to him, especially related to immigration.

Less than three months after Trump’s second term, district judges issued national injunctions or temporary restriction orders that prevented Trump administration from dismissing thousands of civil servants; end citizenship by birth for children of immigrants who entered illegally in the country and foreign residents born on American soil; bar transgender troops from the Armed Forces; and deport migrants using a 18th century war law.

The Trump government filed emergency requests to reverse many of these decrees and asked the Supreme Court to analyze the legality of national injunctions, as part of a case related to Trump’s executive order that tried to eliminate citizenship by birth. The implementation of this order was paused nationally by lower federal courts. A decision on the case by the judges is expected at any time.

This week, the Supreme Court blocked decisions of district courts that would have required the renovation of dismissed evidence workers and temporarily prevented the administration to deport migrants using Alien Enemies ACT, a 1798 law that the White House claimed to allow the deportation of alleged gang members without court hearings.

The Issa project gained impetus after the latter case, in which James E. Boomberg, a veteran judge in the district of Columbia, temporarily interrupted the government’s deportations. A furious Trump called for the impeachment of Bomberg, an appeal echoed by key advisers and several republicans of the most radical wing of the House.

However, no federal judge has been impeachment strictly for the result of a case, and republican leaders have been cautious about seeking judicial impeachments. Instead, they suggested alternatives, including limiting the powers of the judges.

Deputy Jim Jordan, Ohio’s Republican, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, requested the use of spending bills to limit the ability of judges to issue national injunctions.