House Passes Landmark Bill to Curb Power of Federal Judges Amidst Fierce Debate

In a dramatic move highlighting sharpened partisan divides, the House of Representatives has narrowly passed a bill designed to limit the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that have repeatedly affected the policies of the Trump administration. This legislative effort, branded by supporters as a defense against "rogue" judges, is stirring deep controversy across the political spectrum and raising critical questions about constitutional balance and judicial authority.

The "No Rogue Rulings Act," proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), passed largely along party lines by a vote of 219 to 213. All but one Republican supported the measure, while Democrats remained unanimously opposed. The bill restricts district court injunctions to apply only to the parties involved in a case, rather than having blanket national effect—a marked shift from recent trends that saw dozens of nationwide injunctions, particularly during Donald Trump's presidency.

Supporters of the bill argue that federal courts have been wielding outsized influence, with Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) asserting that a "single district court judge can hold the America First agenda hostage indefinitely." According to House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), "Many Democrat-appointed lower court judges have conducted themselves like activist liberal lawyers in robes while attempting to stop President Trump's nationwide reforms." The pace of these injunctions, which totaled over 86 during Trump’s first term and 17 in his second, has been a source of pronounced Republican frustration.

However, Democrats rebuff the "activist judge" label, insisting that increased court intervention during the Trump years is a direct response to executive overreach. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) underscored this sentiment: "If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That is simple." Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) challenged Republican consistency, highlighting that GOP outrage was absent when Trump-appointed judges issued nationwide orders against the Biden administration.

The bill also features amendments intended to curb "judge shopping," where plaintiffs strategically file cases in districts perceived as more favorable to their cause. Its lead sponsor, Rep. Issa, remarked, “It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan. To do the right thing at this time is critical.” Despite bipartisan precedent for reform, including similar efforts put forth by Democrats in previous sessions, the present climate has rendered the debate intensely polarized.

The Senate remains a significant hurdle. With a 60-vote threshold needed to advance, prospects for the bill’s passage are uncertain in the Democrat-held chamber. Republican leaders are nevertheless exploring additional tactics, such as prohibiting the use of federal funds for enforcing broad injunctions.

While the fate of the No Rogue Rulings Act is in limbo, its passage in the House marks a decisive moment in America’s ongoing debate over the reach of judicial power and the balance of power between government branches. As the Senate prepares to weigh in, the broader question lingers: should district judges be national policymakers, or is Congress right to rein in their authority?

What do you think about limiting nationwide injunctions? Join the conversation below and share your perspective.

• Darrell Issa
• Donald Trump
• No Rogue Rulings Act