Senate Republicans Back House Effort to Curb Nationwide Rulings

Senate Republicans have rallied behind a House-led effort to prevent federal trial judges from handing down rulings that apply nationally, as part of the party’s ongoing battle against judges who’ve ruled against the Trump administration.

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans said Wednesday they support measures to limit the authority of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, an issue the House is expected to vote on as soon as next week.

At least two measures to curb the practice have been introduced or announced in the Senate this week, including one by Judiciary Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C), who said he’s co-sponsoring Grassley’s forthcoming bill, said he read a synopsis of the proposal and described the bill as “measured.”

“Democrats and Republicans have all had a problem with this when the injunction’s against their interests,” Tillis said. “I think now’s the time to just say, ‘look, we can’t have a district court judge create de facto national injunctions.’”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former state court judge who also said he’s joining Grassley’s bill, said the premise that a single judge could issue a ruling that affects the entire country “strikes me as ridiculous.”

Nationwide injunctions as an “abuse of power” and “a serious problem that needs to be corrected,” said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). He added he would assess the legislative proposals put forward.

The authority of lower court judges to block President Donald Trump’s actions nationwide has emerged as a key issue for congressional Republicans, following dozens of court rulings that have halted White House efforts to slash the federal workforce and limit immigration.

House Republican leaders have announced plans to vote on a bill (HR 1526) from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to restrict lower courts’ authority to issue such sweeping rulings. They’ve framed the proposal as an alternative legislative remedy to separate House Republican-led moves to impeach judges who have ruled against Trump, which face slim odds in the House and no chance in the Senate.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also introduced a measure (S.1099) to restrict injunctions that mirrors language in the House bill, and so far has two Republican backers. Hawley said he hopes to work together with Grassley, and that it will be “one consistent policy.”

A spokesperson for Grassley said he plans to introduce his measure next week. Grassley is also planning to hold a committee hearing on the issue on April 2.

Grassley said on the floor Tuesday when announcing his upcoming bill that the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions is “unconstitutional” and “anti-democratic.”

“If the Supreme Court won’t stop it, then Congress must,” he said.

Supreme Court

The legislation is gaining traction as the Supreme Court weighs a Trump administration request to narrow nationwide court orders that blocked his attempt to end birthright citizenship for babies born in the US to certain categories of immigrants. In court filings, Trump’s acting solicitor general said these nationwide orders “transgress constitutional limits on courts’ powers.”

Scholars say the Trump request is as good a vehicle as there’s been for the Supreme Court to eliminate or clarify these kinds of orders. Justices across the ideological spectrum have at times criticized the use of nationwide injunctions. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch has referred to them as “cosmic injunctions.”

Republicans still expressed interest in legislating on the issue, regardless of the high court’s ultimate approach.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), another Judiciary Committee member who’s decried nationwide injunctions, said there’s “no guarantee that the Supreme Court will address the legal status of a universal injunction.”

“The courts had a number of occasions to do that. It’s declined every time. I don’t know that it will, this time, clear up this confusion,” Kennedy said. “It’s time for Congress to step in and weigh in on it.”

Enacting a law would “create permanence” in this space, Tillis said. If the Supreme Court issues an opinion indicating distaste for lower court nationwide injunctions, a bill would codify it, and if the justices rule in favor of the practice, “then this is how you abrogate that judgment,” Tillis said.

Still, though Senate Republicans control the chamber, they’d need at least seven Democrats on board under chamber rules to proceed to a vote on legislation, if all Republicans support it.

Political parties often switch positions on national injunctions, depending on which administration the rulings are against. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) proposed legislation in 2023 that would require civil suits seeking nationwide orders to be heard by the Washington federal court, in an effort to prevent litigants from filing suits in a court with a judge they perceive to be favorable to their cause.

But Senate Judiciary Democrats have so far signaled they’d oppose current efforts to curb judicial power.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said the House nationwide injunction bill is a “bad idea,” and that some Republicans “are trying very hard to curry favor with President Trump because he’s unhappy about a few judicial decisions.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said it’s “wildly” hypocritical for Republicans to support limiting injunctions now after seeking them out during the Biden administration.