On Wednesday, the House approved a legislation aimed at limiting district court judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions, which could significantly reduce the judiciary's capacity to halt President Trump’s policies.
Referred to as the No Rogue Rulings Act, this bill introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) aims to restrict judges from offering remedies exclusively to those who are directly affected by the lawsuit.
The legislation was approved with a 219-213 vote.
It would bar district court judges By prohibiting nationwide injunctions, even when issues have national implications — underming many lawsuits contesting Trump’s orders.
"Following President Trump's return to office, progressive activists have teamed up with sympathetic judges whom they've specifically approached to hear their cases and leverage nationwide injunctions to block numerous legitimate executive measures and programs," stated Issa.
These broad court orders exemplify judicial overreach at its most extreme.
For Democrats, though, a series of recent courtroom defeats for Trump indicates not errant judges but instead the unlawful nature of his conduct.
"My counterparts from the opposing side aim to convince you that these nationwide court orders halting President Donald Trump’s unlawful and unconstitutional acts are unjust," stated Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
Here’s what needs to be understood: If you dislike these prohibitions, refrain from engaging in unlawful and unconstitutional activities. It really is that straightforward.
Both sides have proposed legislation aimed at limiting nationwide injunctions, however, it has been primarily driven by Republicans. picked up the mantle This year, following a temporary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the Trump administration was prevented from deporting Venezuelans to an El Salvadoran prison using the Alien Enemies Act.
Trump has demanded the judge's removal through impeachment, whereas other Republican figures have criticized how a single judge can impede the implementation of a White House policy nationwide.
However, Democrats contend that the injunctions appropriately shield people nationwide from harm, even if these individuals are not direct parties to the litigation.
Numerous individuals have pointed out Trump’s directive aimed at preventing birthright citizenship for people whose parents are not citizens. Both Democratic- and Republican-appointed judges invalidated this order, ruling that it contravenes the Constitution’s provision granting citizenship to anyone born within the country’s borders.
Democrats contend that it doesn't make sense for the parents of every single child to have to file separate lawsuits.
"nationwide injunctions serve a crucial function in safeguarding our democracy and ensuring accountability among the political branches. These measures prevent harm to millions of individuals who might otherwise suffer from unlawful or unconstitutional governmental actions," stated jayapal.
Over the past 25 years, judges have progressively handed down nationwide injunctions more frequently, a development that has been met with increasing examination of their validity.
According to an analysis published in The New York Times, six nationwide injunctions were issued during President George W. Bush’s administration. Harvard Law Review The figure increased twofold to 12 under the Obama administration prior to surging dramatically to 64 during President Trump's initial term.
In the Biden administration, the total count of nationwide injunctions dropped to 14, which was exceeded within just a few weeks during the second Trump administration.
"Judges are claiming this authority unilaterally, which constitutes a blatant misuse of public confidence and judicial power, thus opening up a Pandora’s box that jeopardizes the constitutional framework," stated Representative Tom McClintock (R-Calif).
The Congress is elected to create laws. The President is elected to implement them. The judiciary is designated solely to resolve disputes and legal issues presented to it by individuals who have been harmed.
However, Democrats argue that Trump — who has already enacted over 100 executive orders during his second term — has significantly outpaced his predecessors in attempting to mold policies via executive actions that extend beyond his authority and formulating unlawful policies.
"Federal judges have handed down at least 68 court injunctions halting or delaying the administration’s unlawful activities to stop irreversible damage within the nation due to their unconstitutional acts. These judges were appointed by five distinct presidents—both Democrats and Republicans," stated Representative Jamie Raskin (Md.), who leads the House Judiciary Committee as its senior Democrat.
Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa has proposed an analogous bill in the Senate aimed at restricting judicial decisions to only those individuals who are part of the specific case. Nevertheless, it remains uncertain as to when this legislative measure could move forward.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This content must not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.To get the most recent updates on news, weather, sports, and live videos, visit ConchoValleyHomepage.com.