House Panel Moves to Curb Nationwide Injunctions, Add Judges

Proposals to expand US trial courts and curb nationwide injunctions that a leading Republican lawmaker says are impeding President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out his agenda advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee.

The panel at a meeting on Wednesday approved Republican-led legislation to expand district courts over objections from Democrats, sending a revived measure adding more judges to the House floor after Joe Biden vetoed it last year.

Members voted 16-11 to approve the new version of the so-called JUDGES Act (HR 1702), which would add 63 permanent and three temporary federal district judgeships in an effort to alleviate pressure on understaffed benches.

The bill, led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), moved largely along party lines, though Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif), whose home state would receive over a dozen new federal judges under the bill, joined Republicans to support it.

The proposal is likely to pass in the Republican-controlled House, as it did previously. However, its prospects are less clear in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed for bills to move forward.

Another measure put forward by Issa and voted out of the panel, 14-9, would restrict the authority of federal judges to hand down nationwide injunctions, or rulings that block policies from taking effect nationally.

Court rulings blocking Trump’s actions “are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach and have disrupted the president’s ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,” Issa said.

The committee approved an amendment to the proposal that would, as described during the meeting, allow nationwide injunctions in some instances, such as for litigation brought by multiple states, if heard by a panel of three trial court judges.

Expanding Courts

Issa, who reintroduced the court expansion bill, said the latest version is nearly identical to the one that passed Congress last year and is “necessary for the effective administration of justice.”

He also signaled he would work with Democrats to change details of the bill as needed, but he drew a line at delaying the legislation’s start date until the next presidential administration, as committee Democrats requested.

“If we wait those four years, we’re not doing our constitutional duty,” Issa said.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the committee, said the only way the bill will pass is if it starts with the next president, meaning Trump wouldn’t be able to fill any of the new slots.

“This is the only way that it really works. Obviously we’re not going to be party to another court-packing scheme,” Raskin said.

Still, at least two Democrats promised to support the legislation if committee Republicans agreed to assert the panel’s authority over federal courthouses in a letter to Elon Musk, after more than a dozen were included on a since-deleted list for possible sale on Tuesday.

The judgeship and injunction bills l advanced alongside another Republican-led bid aimed at shaping judicial power.

The measure (HR 1789) by Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.) would allow current or former presidents and vice presidents facing state criminal charges to move their cases to federal court. That bill spurred several hours of debate, with Democrats raising concerns it would shield Trump and other officials from legal accountability.

Raskin called the proposal “an autocratic Christmas tree.”

The committee was initially scheduled to consider a fourth bill related to judicial review of agency actions, but that proposal was pulled from the agenda.