Polixxy
← Back to bills

H.R. 1526 · 119th Congress

NORRA of 2025

Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48] (R-CA) · Introduced · 14 cosponsors

House VoteLaw
Progress
50%
1
Introduced
A bill is formally introduced by a lawmaker; it is assigned an ID and sent to committee.
2
Committee
A smaller group of lawmakers reviews, debates, and edits the bill before it can advance.
3
Reported
After committee work, the committee releases a report and the bill can go to the full chamber for a vote.
4
House Vote
The bill has passed the full House of Representatives.
5
Senate Vote
The bill has passed the full Senate.
6
Passed Congress
Both the House and Senate have passed the bill; it moves to the President for final approval.
7
Sent to President
The bill has been sent to the President, who may sign it, veto it, or let a ten-day clock decide.
8
Became Law
The bill is now law — by the President's signature, by the ten-day rule when the President declines to sign, or by a two-thirds veto override.

Latest action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

· from Congress.gov, as of August 8, 2026

Committees

Judiciary Committee

What this stage means

The bill has passed the full House of Representatives.

Why this matters

A majority vote by the full chamber is required for the bill to keep moving toward becoming law.

What can happen next

The bill goes to the Senate, which can pass it, amend it, or never take it up.

Study this bill

AP Gov
Unit 2 · Interactions Among Branches of Government

The constitutional question

May Congress bar district courts from issuing injunctions broader than the parties before them — ending the 'nationwide injunction'? Article III lets Congress shape lower-court jurisdiction, but critics argue remedy-stripping guts judicial review itself when the government acts unlawfully against millions at once.

The strongest case for

Under current practice, winning national policy requires persuading a majority of Congress — but blocking it requires persuading exactly one hand-picked district judge, which is why every administration of both parties now watches its signature actions frozen within days by forum-shopped suits in friendly divisions. Nationwide injunctions were essentially unknown for most of American history; Article III resolves cases between parties, and relief running to strangers nationwide is legislating from a single courtroom. The bill leaves judicial review fully intact — plaintiffs still win their cases, classes can still be certified — it simply requires that nationwide relief come from nationwide process.

The strongest case against

When the government acts unlawfully against millions of people simultaneously, party-only relief means everyone else must file their own lawsuit while the violation continues — rights become available only to those with lawyers. Class certification, the bill's proposed alternative, takes months and fails on technicalities precisely in fast-moving emergencies where relief matters. Uniformity concerns cut the other way too: party-limited injunctions produce a checkerboard where a policy is illegal in one state and enforced in the next, chaos for anything national in scope. And Congress stripping remedies just as courts were checking executive overreach — the timing, in every administration, is never a coincidence.

Foundational documents in play

  • Federalist No. 78

    Hamilton's 'least dangerous branch' argument is the frame: is a single district judge halting national policy judicial duty or judicial legislation?

  • U.S. Constitution

    Article III gives Congress real power over lower-court jurisdiction and remedies — the bill tests how far that power reaches.

Required cases in play

  • Marbury v. Madison (1803)

    Marbury established courts say what the law is; the bill asks whether one judge may say it for the entire nation at once.

Organizations supporting

Organizations opposing

This has happened before

The politics flip perfectly by administration: Republicans raged at nationwide injunctions blocking Trump policies (2017–20), Democrats at single Texas judges blocking Biden policies (2021–24) — each party discovering the other's argument on schedule. Then in June 2025, Trump v. CASA saw the Supreme Court itself sharply curtail universal injunctions, achieving much of the bill's aim judicially while the Senate never acted. When Congress stalls, the contested power gets resolved by the branch that holds it.

Practice FRQ

SCOTUS Comparison. The No Rogue Rulings Act would limit district courts to granting relief only to plaintiffs before them. (A) Identify the principle of judicial power common to debates over this bill and Marbury v. Madison (1803). (B) Explain how Federalist No. 78's description of the judiciary supports the bill's limits on single-judge relief. (C) Explain how Marbury's reasoning could instead be used to argue the bill undermines judicial review.

Sources: www.congress.gov

Action history

Every recorded action from Congress.gov — 24 total.

  1. Senate

    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

  2. House

    Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, the House resumed consideration of H.R. 1526.

  3. House

    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1550-1552)

  4. House

    Ms. Ross moved to recommit to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR H1550-1551)

  5. House

    The previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.

  6. House

    On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 217 (Roll no. 97).

  7. House

    Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).

  8. House

    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).

  9. House

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  10. House

    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 294. (consideration: CR H1482; text: CR H1482)

  11. House

    Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res. 28, H.R. 1526 and H.R. 22. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28.

  12. House

    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 1526.

  13. House

    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.

  14. House

    The Chair announced that pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further proceedings on H.R. 1526 are postponed.

  15. House

    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 294 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18, S.J. Res. 28, H.R. 1526 and H.R. 22. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28.

  16. House

    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 282 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 22, H.R. 1526, S.J. Res. 18, and S.J. Res. 28 under a closed rule. The resolution provides for one hour of debate on each measure and one motion to recommit on H.R. 22 and H.R. 1526, and one motion to commit on S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28. The resolution also provides that H. Res. 23 and H. Res. 164 are laid on the table.

  17. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-40.

  18. House

    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-40.

  19. House

    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 27.

  20. House

    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held

  21. House

    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9.

  22. House

    Introduced in House

  23. House

    Introduced in House

  24. House

    Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.