WASHINGTON — Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee showed no signs Wednesday they would back the Republican push to curtail the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a type of court order that has been used to hobble executive actions from the Trump administration.

Republican lawmakers are pursuing the issue in a multipronged approach. They had teed up a floor vote on legislation in the House, made a request to include language in fiscal 2026 funding bills and Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, introduced a new bill on the topic.

District court judges have paused Trump administration efforts to overhaul the federal government, end birthright citizenship and fire federal probationary employees, among other policies.

At the hearing, Grassley referred to the court orders as “universal injunctions” and said the issue “has plagued and frustrated Democratic [and] Republican presidents alike.”

“Most of us in this room have at various times supported or opposed universal injunctions,” Grassley said. “My fellow Republicans and I sometimes like them when there’s a Democratic president, and my Democratic colleagues probably like them right now.”

“We all have to agree to give up universal injunctions as a weapon against policies we disagree with,” Grassley said.

Sen. Adam B. Schiff, D-Calif., also touched on the partisan dynamic tied to nationwide injunctions. Republicans were supportive of a nationwide injunction against the use of a drug for medication abortions, while Democrats have been applauding injunctions against “unlawful” Trump administration actions, he said.

But, the California Democrat said, getting rid of nationwide injunctions right now would be “disastrous for the country,” given that the Trump administration has been “so breathtaking in its lawlessness.”

“It doesn’t mean there’s not going to come a time when we should agree on a bipartisan basis to place limits on this capability. I think we should, in particular on the abuse of forum shopping,” Schiff said.

But he said this is not the moment to do it. Instead, there should be a focus “on the illegality, not on the tool to constrain it.”

“That doesn’t mean we’re powerless to work on legislation on this, and I think many of us have concurred with the idea of legislation that takes effect after this term, when we don’t know who the next president is,” Schiff said.

Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, D-Hawaii, signaled her opposition to Grassley’s bill at the hearing.

“There are some concerns about the approach that the chairman is taking in his bill,” she said.

In this Congress, Republicans have lambasted the injunctions as overstepping judicial power, while Democrats say courts have been a key check on illegal or unconstitutional moves from the Trump administration. Donald Trump, in his second term, has sought to expand executive power and has used his office to retaliate against his perceived political enemies.

Criticism from the Trump administration escalated last month after Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered a temporary halt to the removal of all noncitizens in U.S. custody who were targeted under the administration’s proclamation based on the 1798-era Alien Enemies Act.

Grassley has one proposal that he says would restrain lower courts’ ability to hand down “universal injunctions.”

In the House, Republican lawmakers were aiming to vote on a separate bill this week that would limit the ability of federal district court judges to issue injunctions that apply nationwide. But plans for a floor vote this week fell apart, as House leaders canceled votes for the rest of the week because of a separate issue.

The House bill would stop district courts from handing down injunctive relief orders that apply to parties that are not involved in the case. It has an exception for certain cases brought by multiple states. Those would be heard by a three-judge panel.

Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is looking to use the appropriations process to secure a policy win for Republicans. In a letter Monday, he urged appropriators to consider including language in fiscal 2026 funding bills that would “address the abusive use of nationwide injunctions.”

Jordan, in the letter, urged them to consider language that would ban taxpayer money from being used to enforce “these overbroad injunctions beyond the specific parties in front of an issuing court in a particular case.”

“Additionally, we ask that you consider including language to limit appropriated funds related to the issuance and enforcement of nationwide injunctions, including using court resources to compel compliance, impose fines, or conduct contempt proceedings related to such injunctions,” Jordan said in the letter.

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.