POLISCOPE
Back to feed
HR1526FEDERALin_committee
High Impact

The No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA) of 2025

Original title: NORRA of 2025

February 24, 2025

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Where This Stands

Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Signed

Currently in_committee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.

Last action
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.Apr 10, 2025

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

The Frame

What this does

This legislation would fundamentally change how federal courts manage legal challenges to government policies by preventing a single district judge from issuing rulings that apply beyond the immediate parties to a case, potentially ending the practice of 's.'

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

United States district courts

The bill restricts the legal authority of these courts to issue certain types of injunctive relief.

Litigants in federal court

Parties seeking broad or nationwide injunctions would be limited to obtaining relief that applies only to their specific case.

What changed

Current stage: in_committee.

What's next

Floor Vote.

Background

  • The practice of 'nationwide injunctions' has become a frequent point of contention in federal litigation, where district judges issue rulings that effectively halt federal policies across the entire country. context

Summary

This bill restricts the power of U.S. district courts to issue nationwide or broad injunctions, limiting their authority to only those orders that directly affect the specific parties involved in a lawsuit. If passed, judges would be prohibited from issuing rulings that apply to individuals or entities not directly participating in the case before them.

Why It Matters

This legislation would fundamentally change how federal courts manage legal challenges to government policies by preventing a single district judge from issuing rulings that apply beyond the immediate parties to a case, potentially ending the practice of 's.'

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an 'injunctive relief'?
An injunction is a court order that requires a person or entity to do, or refrain from doing, specific acts.
How would this change current court practices?
Currently, some district courts issue 's' that stop a government policy for the entire country. This bill would restrict those orders so they only apply to the specific people or groups who brought the lawsuit.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Lobbying Activity

Protect Democracy United (formerly known as UNITED TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY)

$70,000

2025

GOVERNMENT ISSUES

In opposition to threats against the judiciary that erode constitutional safeguards, including the JUDGES Act (H.R. 1702), the PEPPER Act (H.R. 1789), the NORRA Act (H.R. 1526), and the Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevention Act. In support of more robust funding to protect Congressional Members, staff, and families but also greater transparency on the threats. In support of judiciary security amendments to the reconciliation bill, (H.R.1) In support of the MARSHALS Act (S.1873) to transfer oversight of the U.S. Marshals to the judicial branch. In support of the Protecting Our Democracy Act to prevent abuses of Presidential power, restoring checks and balances and accountability and transparency in government, and defending elections against foreign interference In support of reforms to the National Emergencies Act. In opposition to the SAVE Act (H.R.22) and impediments to the right to vote. In support of federal election security funding. In opposition to the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. In opposition to Executive impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds. In opposition to politicization of the armed forces. In support of more transparency around RIFs and protection of the federal civil service. In opposition to tax bill language designating non-profits as "supporters of terrorism." In opposition to reducing the funding of the Government Accountability Office.

Voting Record

Sponsors

Connected Entities

Sources

Open source document

www.congress.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance85
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy90
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz40
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record