On Wednesday, the GOP-led House passed a bill that would restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that have blocked elements of President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda.
The “No Rogue Rulings Act” prevailed largely along party lines, with 219 Republicans and no Democrats voting for the measure. A single GOP lawmaker, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), joined with 212 Democrats in voting against it. One member did not vote.
“Democrats insist there is a constitutional crisis just because they don’t like President Trump’s policies,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said in a post on X this week. “The actual crisis is activist judges trying to single-handedly stop the President’s agenda.”
The bill, which now heads to the Republican-controlled Senate, seeks to amend U.S. Code to prevent district courts from issuing injunctions unless the order applies only to the parties of the particular case at hand.
Before passing out of the House Judiciary Committee last month, the bill was amended to allow for an injunction from a panel of three randomly-selected judges when the overarching case is brought by two or more states in multiple circuits and make room for appealing to the Supreme Court.
If the legislation makes it to Trump’s desk in its current form, his advisers would recommend that he sign it, according to a statement of administration policy from the White House.
“This bill is consistent with this Administration’s commitment to preserving the separation of powers enshrined in our constitution,” the statement said.
Federal judges have issued numerous injunctions in the first few months of the new Trump administration, including orders that have stalled the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative and temporarily prevented the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, as legal battles over federal actions play out in court.
Many GOP lawmakers argue that nationwide injunctions have been exploited to stall Trump’s executive actions and initiatives.
“Left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives” from the Trump administration, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who introduced the bill, said during House floor debate on Tuesday.
“Proof of that occurred just yesterday,” Issa added, referring to a Supreme Court ruling that lifted the hold U.S. District Judge James Boasberg placed on deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
Democrats claim that Issa’s bill allows the Trump administration to bypass legal boundaries rather than restricting overreaching judges.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) called the legislation a “dangerous threat to the rule of law” that “is not intended to curtail rogue judges from issuing rogue rulings,” but rather to “enable a rogue administration to continue to violate the law.”
Although some Republican lawmakers and Trump have advocated for impeaching or otherwise trying to remove judges who have ruled against the president’s policies, GOP leadership in the House have so far stuck to a legislative response and hearings.
There has been movement in the upper chamber, too.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) unveiled another bill that would amend U.S. Code to “limit the authority of district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief.” That legislation aims “to STOP liberal judges’ serial abuse of their power by BANNING nationwide injunctions,” Hawley said.
A final House vote on Issa’s bill was expected last week, but it was delayed until Johnson resolved a proxy voting dispute.
