The House of Representatives passed the “No Rogue Rulings Act” on Wednesday, a Republican-led bill designed to curb the power of federal district court judges.
The measure passed by a narrow 219-213 vote and represents a strong push by House conservatives to prevent activist judges from stalling President Trump’s agenda through courtroom backchannels.
The legislation, authored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), would prohibit district judges from issuing injunctions that extend beyond the plaintiffs in a given case.
In recent years, liberal attorneys and activist groups have increasingly relied on friendly judges in left-leaning jurisdictions to block conservative policies nationwide—undermining the will of the American people and stalling lawful executive action.
“Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponize nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” said Issa.
“These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at the worst.”
Republicans say the current legal environment effectively allows a single unelected judge to block national policies on immigration, education, energy, and more—an abuse of judicial authority that undermines constitutional separation of powers.
The issue came to a head recently after a lone U.S. district judge halted Trump’s effort to deport certain Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act, prompting renewed calls among conservatives for judicial accountability.
Trump has even called for the judge’s impeachment, highlighting just how much influence a single courtroom can exert over national policy.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) echoed the constitutional concerns: “Judges are asserting this authority by themselves, and it’s an outrageous abuse of public trust and judicial power… The Congress is elected to make law. The president is elected to enforce it. The judiciary is appointed for the sole purpose of resolving cases and controversies brought to it by individual injured parties.”
Democrats argue that nationwide injunctions serve as a shield against harmful policies and that requiring every individual affected by an unlawful executive order to file separate lawsuits is unworkable.
“Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said.
Yet, the data suggests a troubling trend under past administrations.
While just six nationwide injunctions were issued under President George W. Bush and 12 under President Obama, the number soared to 64 under Trump’s first term—reflecting the unprecedented judicial resistance to a sitting president’s agenda.
That number dropped to 14 under Biden, but with Trump’s return, injunctions have already surpassed that figure in just the first few weeks of his second term.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, though it remains to be seen whether Democrats in the upper chamber will allow it to move forward.
Nonetheless, House Republicans made it clear: the days of activist judges holding veto power over a duly elected president’s policy agenda may be numbered.
Victory Hooray
It’ll never make it past the Senate.