Latest news with #NoRogueRulingsAct
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -U.S. Senate Republicans have added language to President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies they conclude are unlawful. Text of the Republican-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's contribution to the bill released by its chair, Senator Chuck Grassley, late on Thursday would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement in the Senate's version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is different from the provision the Republican-controlled House of Representatives included when it passed the bill last month that would curb courts' power in a different way. The House version curtails the ability of judges to enforce orders holding officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Judges use contempt orders to bring parties into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail time. Some judges who have blocked Trump administration actions have said officials are at risk of being held in contempt for not complying with their orders. Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Grassley's office said in a statement the language the Judiciary Committee proposed would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that they make a party seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, are using complex budget rules to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. The Senate Judiciary Committee's piece of the bill would also provide the judiciary funding to study the costs to taxpayers associated with such injunctions and provide training for judges about the problems associated with them. A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, criticized the Republican-drafted legislative text, saying "Republicans are targeting nationwide injunctions because they're beholden to a president who is breaking the law — but the courts are not."
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill aimed to restrict 'activist judges' awaits Senate vote; Critics call HR 1526 a threat to constitution
The Brief H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, aims to limit district courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions against President Trump's executive orders. Critics, including the ACLU and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, argue the bill threatens constitutional checks and balances and judicial independence. The bill, having passed the House, awaits a Senate vote before potentially becoming law. LOS ANGELES - A bill that would limit courts' ability to block President Donald Trump's executive orders is awaiting votes from the Senate. This comes as H.R. 1526, or the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), was passed by the House of Representatives last week. What we know According to Congress' records page, H.R. 1526 aims to amend Title 28 of the United States Code and then limit "district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes." "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," the bill's summary reads on The bill was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, who represents California's 48th Congressional District which covers parts of Riverside County, back in late February 2025. On April 9, the bill passed on the House floor with 219 YES votes, with 213 others voting NO. What they're saying Following the news of H.R. 1526 passing on the House floor, Issa issued the following statement on his District 48 webpage, accusing "activist judges" of abusing their powers: "Practically every day, activist federal judges are abusing their Article III power, contradicting the Constitution, and blocking President Donald Trump from exercising his executive authority to deport criminal illegals, reduce wasteful government spending and strengthen our military," Issa said in a statement released on April 10. Rep. Austin Pfluger, who represents Texas' 11th Congressional District and a supporter of the bill, co-wrote an op-ed for FOX News, saying that the bill would be the answer to stopping the "courtroom coup." The other side Critics of the bill say passage of H.R. 1526 would be a threat to the U.S. Constitution as well as the government's checks and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues the bill would limit courts from stopping unconstitutional actions. Mike Zamore, the ACLU's national director of policy and government affairs, is calling for the Senate to reject the bill. "If we want presidents to obey the law, courts need to be able to stop them when they're overstepping," Zamore said in a statement published on the ACLU's website. Another organization, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, also blasted the bill, saying it would enable a "Trump Takeover." "Congressional efforts that seek to undermine the independence and fairness of the judiciary are blatant attempts to appease a president who thinks he's king, and they seek to usher in autocracy in ways that should alarm everyone. The president and his enablers know what they're doing is unlawful, so they're trying to change the rules and the law," Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights senior director of the fair courts Lena Zwarensteyn said in a statement published on the organization's website. Zwarensteyn adds the bill is also a threat to democracy. "We need a powerful response in defense of our democracy, not lawmakers quickly changing the rules to benefit a lawless president who prizes loyalty and power over the rights of all of us. We urge the Senate to reject similar measures. Instead, lawmakers should focus on advancing proposals that will improve the judiciary for all people so that one day our courts will truly deliver equal justice for all," she said in a statement. What's next As mentioned earlier in this report, the bill awaits passage by the Senate. Should the bill pass on the Senate floor, it goes to President Trump's desk, where it could be signed into law. The Source This report used information provided by Congress' public records and statements issued by the Congress member who introduced the bill, Rep. Darrell Issa, and online statements published on American Civil Liberties Union and Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights' webpages.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - House smashes egg basket, scrambling last week's floor agenda
Don't put all your eggs in one basket, they say. That is especially true if eggs are running $13 a dozen. Last week the House Rules Committee ignored that advice and the House responded by smashing the basket, scrambling the floor agenda so badly it had to be scrapped for the rest of the week. Back in the old days, if the House Rules Committee had four bills before it seeking a special rule for floor consideration, the committee would grant one special rule for each. In modern times, the committee, in order to save on time and recorded floor votes, tends to bundle all the measures into a single rule. A special rule is a simple House resolution setting the terms of debate and amendment for each of the bills included. Special rules also give privileged consideration to measures that otherwise would not be in order due to their position on the calendar. In early January, Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.) introduced the Proxy Voting for New Parents Resolution that would allow members who are fathers or mothers of infants, to cast their votes remotely through a designated member, in writing, for up to 12 weeks after birth. In late February, Rep. Laura Paulina Luna (R.-Fla.), introduced a resolution discharging the House Rules Committee from consideration of the Pettersen resolution. Under House rules, a discharge petition requires 218 signatures (a House majority) to allow the targeted measure to be called up on the floor as privileged. Last Monday, the Rules Committee had four measures before it: the No Rogue Rulings Act, prohibiting U.S. district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions; the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE), a bill requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections; and two resolutions disapproving regulations related to financial institutions. The Rules Committee recessed after the hearing. When it reconvened the next morning, one other procedural matter had been added to the special rule — a proviso that would automatically table the resolutions offered by Pettersen and Luna. On April 1, shortly after noon, after acquiring the requisite signatures, Luna announced to the House her intention to offer as privileged her motion to discharge the Petterson resolution. The speaker pro tempore informed her that under House rules the Speaker would announce a designated time for its consideration within two legislative days. Later that day, the Rules Committee called up its special rule that included a provision automatically adopting a motion to table both the Luna discharge resolution and Pettersen proxy measure. The GOP's opposition to proxy voting was led by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). He explained that he had long opposed proxy floor voting on grounds it was unconstitutional: Article I, section 5 requires that 'a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business,' and it has long been held to mean a majority of members actually present. The Rules Committee has long been known as 'the Speaker's committee' because it is used primarily for facilitating the majority's floor scheduling. On April 1, the special rule for the four measures and proxy ban was defeated, 206-222, with all Democrats, along with nine defecting Republicans, opposing the rule. Johnson termed the result 'very disappointing' since 'a handful of Republicans joined with all Democrats to take down a rule … That's rarely done.' Johnson subsequently announced he was canceling legislative business for the rest of the week. Why? Most likely because the Luna discharge motion was ripe for consideration within the next two legislative days. Days without scheduled business don't count as legislative days. Meanwhile, the Speaker, working with other Republicans, struggled to find a compromise acceptable to Luna. On Sunday a compromise was struck by the Speaker with Luna in which she would support the alternative of 'live pair voting.' Under that process, any member unable to be present can finding someone on the other side of a vote who is willing to submit an amber 'present' card and announcing on the floor they are changing this vote from 'aye' (or 'no') to 'present,' in a pair with Rep. [name] of [state].' That compromise, sponsored by Luna, was included in a new special rule on Tuesday, along with the other four measures carried over from the previous week. The rule narrowly squeaked by on a vote of 213-211, with three Republicans and six Democrats not voting. The special rule also self-executed the tabling of Luna's original discharge rule. House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (Calif.) vowed that House Democrats would not provide any live pair to bail out absent Republicans, which provoked Petterson's opposition to the compromise measure. During Tuesday's debate on the rule, she held her newborn son in her arms as she spoke. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief-of-staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House approves act that limits judges' checks-and-balances rights to slow the Trump agenda
The House of Representatives passed a bill that would limit the ability of federal judges to issue national rulings in lower court cases, as Donald Trump and his allies have raged against judges for temporarily blocking key parts of the president's agenda. The No Rogue Rulings Act, which passed on Wednesday 219-to-213 with just one Republican joining Democrats in the opposition, would limit federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, instead restricting them in most cases to rulings that only affect the parties before them. 'In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds,' the bill's sponsor, Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California, said during floor debate. 'This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.' Democrats, for their part, argued the spike in injunctions under the second Trump term wasn't an issue with the courts, but rather the president's boundary-pushing actions. 'If it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history,' Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland said of the bill. The bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, where it would need Democratic support to advance. Trump has long personally attacked judges and law enforcement officials with whom he disagrees, and the criticisms have reached a fever pitch since he returned to office. The president has reserved special ire for Judge James Boasberg, who is presiding over a case regarding the administration's emergency deportations to an El Salvador prison. Trump has called Boasberg a 'Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge' and called for his impeachment, prompting a rare public statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' he wrote last month. 'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' White House advisor Elon Musk has sounded a similar tone, claiming judges are leading a 'judicial coup' against the administration and reportedly donating to congressional Republicans who have pushed to impeach judges who ruled against Trump. He also offered Wisconsin voters the chance to win $1 million checks for backing a petition against 'activist judges,' in the context of the state's recent Supreme Court race. In addition to attacking judges, the administration has been accused of ignoring their rulings. More than 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members were sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison, despite a court order asking the administration to turn the flights around. The administration has also admitted to accidentally deporting a Salvadoran man to the same facility, despite knowing of a court order barring his removal to that country, an error the administration has since argued it has no power to correct.
The Independent
10-04-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
House approves act that limits judges' checks-and-balances rights to slow the Trump agenda
The House of Representatives passed a bill that would limit the ability of federal judges to issue national rulings in lower court cases, as Donald Trump and his allies have raged against judges for temporarily blocking key parts of the president's agenda. The No Rogue Rulings Act, which passed on Wednesday 219-to-213 with just one Republican joining Democrats in the opposition, would limit federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, instead restricting them in most cases to rulings that only affect the parties before them. 'In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds,' the bill's sponsor, Republican Representative Darrell Issa of California, said during floor debate. 'This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.' Democrats, for their part, argued the spike in injunctions under the second Trump term wasn't an issue with the courts, but rather the president's boundary-pushing actions. 'If it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history,' Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland said of the bill. The bill is unlikely to pass the Senate, where it would need Democratic support to advance. Trump has long personally attacked judges and law enforcement officials with whom he disagrees, and the criticisms have reached a fever pitch since he returned to office. The president has reserved special ire for Judge James Boasberg, who is presiding over a case regarding the administration's emergency deportations to an El Salvador prison. Trump has called Boasberg a 'Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge' and called for his impeachment, prompting a rare public statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' he wrote last month. 'The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' White House advisor Elon Musk has sounded a similar tone, claiming judges are leading a ' judicial coup ' against the administration and reportedly donating to congressional Republicans who have pushed to impeach judges who ruled against Trump. He also offered Wisconsin voters the chance to win $1 million checks for backing a petition against 'activist judges,' in the context of the state's recent Supreme Court race. In addition to attacking judges, the administration has been accused of ignoring their rulings. More than 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members were sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison, despite a court order asking the administration to turn the flights around. The administration has also admitted to accidentally deporting a Salvadoran man to the same facility, despite knowing of a court order barring his removal to that country, an error the administration has since argued it has no power to correct.
