Skip to content
CIVIC HERALD
HR 1526 · 119th Congress · HouseIn committee

NORRA of 2025

In plain language: This bill prevents individual federal district judges from issuing nationwide orders that halt federal policies across the country, limiting their rulings to only the specific people, businesses, or certified groups involved in the lawsuit. To pause an executive branch policy nationwide, at least two states from different federal judicial circuits would have to file a joint challenge. Those multi-state lawsuits would be decided by a randomly selected panel of three judges, whose decision could be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Provisional: our plain-language summary, pending review.

Provisionalunreviewed: impact, issue tags, provisions, stakeholders, summary
People affected—The text modifies federal court jurisdiction and remedial powers; it does not specify or quantify a specific population of individuals.
Fiscal magnitude—CBO cost estimate published (H.R. 1526, NORRA of 2025, 2025-03-28); dollar figure pending review extraction — see receipt
Reach70provisional · pending reviewrigor: heuristic llm
Your matchSign in →See how this matches your values.

Issues

What this bill touches.

Courts & liability−50Federal vs. state/local+35Ethics & oversight−30

The sign shows the bill's direction on each issue (+ toward, − away); the number is its magnitude. Color never encodes good or bad, and never party.

Who it affects

Who it helps · who it burdens.

Who it helps

  • Federal executive branch agenciesProtects federal executive agencies from nationwide or non-party injunctions issued by a single district judge, requiring multi-state lawsuits before a three-judge panel to obtain such relief (Sec. 2(a)).provisional
  • Multi-state coalitions from different judicial circuitsGranted a specific statutory procedure to obtain broader injunctions against executive branch actions by filing joint lawsuits before a randomly selected three-judge panel (Sec. 2(a)).provisional
  • Parties appealing three-judge panel injunction decisionsGain the right to choose whether to appeal a three-judge panel's injunction ruling directly to the regional court of appeals or to the Supreme Court (Sec. 2(a)).provisional

Who it burdens

  • Federal district courtsProhibits single federal district courts from issuing injunctions that apply to anyone other than the named parties or certified class action members (Sec. 2(a)).provisional
  • Individual plaintiffs and single-state litigantsCannot obtain injunctive relief that extends beyond the immediate parties to the lawsuit unless they bring a certified class action or join with states across different circuits (Sec. 2(a)).provisional

Dollar-level funding (FEC sector totals) is coming in a later phase.

What it does

The provisions, in plain language.

  1. Restricts federal district courts from issuing injunctions that apply to anyone other than the specific parties involved in the lawsuit or individuals represented in a class action.

    Sec. 2(a)provisional

  2. Allows broader injunctions against executive branch actions if at least two states from different federal judicial circuits jointly sue, requiring such cases to be heard by a randomly selected three-judge panel that evaluates harm to non-parties, justice, and separation of powers.

    Sec. 2(a)provisional

  3. Permits parties to appeal a three-judge panel's injunction decision directly to either the regional federal court of appeals or the Supreme Court.

    Sec. 2(a)provisional

How your members of Congress line up

Loading your members of Congress…

Timeline

How it moved.

  1. Apr 10, 2025Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  2. Apr 9, 2025Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  3. Apr 9, 2025On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).
  4. Apr 9, 2025Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 213 (Roll no. 98).
  5. Apr 9, 2025On motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 217 (Roll no. 97).
  6. Apr 7, 2025Rules 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.
  7. Apr 1, 2025Rules 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.
  8. Mar 25, 2025Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-40.
  9. Mar 25, 2025Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-40.
  10. Mar 5, 2025Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 9.
  11. Feb 24, 2025Introduced in House
  12. Feb 24, 2025Introduced in House

The original text

Read it for yourself.

Read the original text →

Sources & provenance

Congress.govrefreshed 9 days ago

Checking your session…