House Passes Bill Limiting Judges' Power to Issue Nationwide Injunctions

<img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/video/AA1CDtOr" data-reference="video"/> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> The legislation was approved with a 219-213 vote. </p> <p> It would bar district court judges By prohibiting nationwide injunctions, even when issues have national implications — underming many lawsuits contesting Trump’s orders. </p> <p> "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. </p> <p> These broad court orders exemplify judicial overreach at its most extreme. </p> <p> For Democrats, though, a series of recent courtroom defeats for Trump indicates not errant judges but instead the unlawful nature of his conduct. </p> <p> "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.). </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> However, Democrats contend that the injunctions appropriately shield people nationwide from harm, even if these individuals are not direct parties to the litigation. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> Democrats contend that it doesn't make sense for the parents of every single child to have to file separate lawsuits. </p> <p> "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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> "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). </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> "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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <i> Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This content must not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. </i> <p> To get the most recent updates on news, weather, sports, and live videos, visit ConchoValleyHomepage.com. </p>

House Passes Bill Limiting Judges' Power to Issue Nationwide Injunctions

On Wednesday, the House approved a legislation aimed at limiting district court judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions, wh...

Read more »

Anti-Trump Judges Hit Hard by Groundbreaking Bill

<ul class="mol-bullets-with-font"> <li class="class"> <strong> CLICK HERE: Subscribe to DIWIDA.NEWS’s daily U.S. politics newsletter </strong> </li> <li class="class"> <strong> PODCAST: Get the latest scoop and rumors direct from inside the White House with Welcome to MAGAland. Tune in now! </strong> </li> </ul> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> nationwide injunctions issued by federal district judges that affect all Americans might become relics of the past following the passage of a legislation supported by republicans to assist the trump administration. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The House approved the 'No Rogue Rulings Act' on Tuesday with a vote of 219 to 213. The legislation will now move to the Republican-controlled Senate, where it is anticipated to be enacted. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> This legislation limits federal district courts from granting nationwide injunctions unless specific conditions apply, with the intention of preventing judicial halts to President Trump’s policy initiatives. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "These unconventional judicial decisions represent a fresh form of opposition to the Trump administration, marking the first instance where such a significant group of judges has deemed it essential to engage in politics," stated Representative Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who authored the bill, earlier this week. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The federal judiciary is not engaged in interpreting the law; instead, it is obstructing the presidency. In reality, it does not consider itself as equal but rather believes itself to be superior. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> It was of utmost importance for Republicans in Congress As they assert, 'Rouge' judges were unfairly limiting the president's power. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "We will stop activist judges from handing down these unconstitutional nationwide injunctions and making laws from the bench, as this has turned into quite an issue," said the Speaker. Mike Johnson said Tuesday. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Trump has been irritated by judges nationwide, from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco, who have ruled against his deportation and DOGE directives. In an unprecedented move, the president went as far as calling for the removal of one particular judge. </p> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1CD5bp" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1CD5bp.jpg"/> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1CD9Qf" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1CD9Qf.jpg"/> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "This judge, much like numerous corrupt ones I've had to face, deserves impeachment!" Trump stated about Washington, D.C.'s Judge James Boasberg, who stopped the president’s immigration enforcement initiatives. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Rulings from Judge Boasberg and many other judges nationwide caused Trump's deportation plans to grind to a halt. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> After this legislation is signed by Trump, which is anticipated, the judges' decisions might be confined to specific issues. This would enable the president to exercise his authority without worrying about nationwide injunctions hindering his policy initiatives. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "We do possess jurisdiction over the federal courts," Johnson stated while discussing the recent bill. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "We have the option to do away with an entire district court," he pointed out. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> We hold the authority over financing for the courts and all these other matters. However, extreme circumstances may necessitate drastic actions, Congress is going to act.' </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> His comment seemed like an implied warning, if not outright threat, suggesting that Congress holds the authority to reorganize and cut funding for courts nationwide. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Though the Supreme Court The supreme judicial authority in the nation, the district courts—which have been handing down nationwide verdicts that thwart White House executive actions—are under congressional oversight. </p> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1CD0fO" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1CD0fO.jpg"/> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The president has requested that D.C. district court Judge James Boasberg be impeached for granting an injunction against the administration’s deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The president has similarly criticized district Judge John James McConnell Jr., who ruled alongside 22 states and the District of Columbia to restore the distribution of federal grants and loans that the administration had halted as they reviewed expenditures related to DOGE. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Republican legislators have already filed impeachment papers against McConnell and another judge from Maryland. <span> Theodore Chuang, who recently decreed that disbanding USAID is unconstitutional. </span> </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> <span> Nevertheless, impeachment seems improbable since it would necessitate backing from Democrats. </span> </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> According to Article III of the Constitution, Congress is tasked with 'establishing and ordaining' the courts below the Supreme Court. This means that legislators are responsible for providing funding and setting up the structure of the lower court system. </p> Read more

Anti-Trump Judges Hit Hard by Groundbreaking Bill

CLICK HERE: Subscribe to DIWIDA.NEWS’s daily U.S. politics newsletter PODCAST: Get the latest scoop and rumors direct ...

Read more »

Anti-Trump Judges Hit Hard by Landmark Bill

<ul class="mol-bullets-with-font"> <li class="class"> <strong> CLICK HERE: Sign up for DIWIDA |’s daily U.S. politics newsletter </strong> </li> <li class="class"> <strong> PODCAST: For the news and gossip from White House insiders - Listen to Welcome to MAGAland here. </strong> </li> </ul> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Nationwide injunctions granted by federal district judges that impact all Americans  may soon be a vestige of the past after a Republicans pushed through a bill to help the Trump administration. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The House passed the 'No Rogue Rulings Act' Tuesday 219 - 213. The bill now heads to the Republican-Senate, which is expected to pass the measure. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> This legislation limits federal district courts from granting nation-wide injunctions unless under specific circumstances, with the intent of reducing judicial obstacles to the policies of the Trump administration. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "These unconventional judicial decisions represent a fresh form of opposition to the Trump administration. This marks the first instance where judges wearing robes have deemed it essential to engage in the political sphere at such a scale," stated Representative Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who authored the bill, earlier this week. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The federal judiciary is not merely interpreting the law; instead, it is obstructing the presidency. In reality, it does not consider itself as equally powerful, but rather sees itself as superior. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> It was of utmost importance for Republicans in Congress As they assert, 'rogue' judges were unfairly limiting the president's power. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "We aim to stop activist judges from handing down these unconstitutional nationwide orders and making laws from the bench, as this has turned into quite an issue," said the Speaker. Mike Johnson said Tuesday. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Trump has faced frustration from judges nationwide, from those in Washington, D.C., to San Francisco, who have ruled against his policies on deportations and meme coins. In an unprecedented move, the President went as far as publicly calling for the dismissal of one such judge. </p> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1CD2J9" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1CD2J9.jpg"/> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1CDdAy" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1CDdAy.jpg"/> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "This judge, similar to numerous corrupt ones I've had to face, ought to be impeached!" Trump stated about Washington, D.C.'s Judge James Boasberg, who suspended the president’s immigrant expulsion initiatives. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Rulings made by Judge Boasberg and many other judges nationwide caused Trump's deportation plans to come to an abrupt stop. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> After this legislation is endorsed by President Trump, which seems imminent, such judicial decisions may pertain solely to specific regions. This would enable the president to implement policies unencumbered by comprehensive national stays. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> "We do hold jurisdiction over the federal courts," Johnson stated while discussing the bill lately. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> 'We could do away with an entire district court,' he pointed out. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> We do hold sway over the funding of the courts and all these other matters. However, extreme circumstances require drastic actions, Congress is going to act.' </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> His comment seemed like an indirect hint, if not a subtle warning, suggesting that Congress holds the authority to reorganize and cut funding for courts nationwide. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Though the Supreme Court The supreme judicial authority in the nation, the district courts—which have been handing down nationwide verdicts that counteract White House executive actions—are under congressional oversight. </p> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1CD0cF" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1CD0cF.jpg"/> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The president has requested that D.C. district court Judge James Boasberg face impeachment due to his issuance of an injunction against the administration’s deportation of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> The president has similarly criticized district Judge John James McConnell Jr., who ruled in favor of 22 states and the District of Columbia to restore the distribution of federal grants and loans that the administration had halted as they reviewed expenditures related to DOGE. </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> Republican legislators have already submitted Articles of Impeachment against McConnell and another judge from Maryland. <span> Theodore Chuang, who recently ruled that dismantling USAID is unconstitutional. </span> </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> <span> Nevertheless, impeachment seems improbable since it would necessitate backing from Democrats. </span> </p> <p class="mol-para-with-font"> According to Article III of the Constitution, it falls upon Congress to 'ordain and establish' the courts below the Supreme Court. This implies that legislators are responsible for providing funding and setting up the framework for the lower court system. </p> Read more

Anti-Trump Judges Hit Hard by Landmark Bill

CLICK HERE: Sign up for DIWIDA |’s daily U.S. politics newsletter PODCAST: For the news and gossip from White House in...

Read more »

High Court Weighs In: Was Woman Never a Muslim or Did She Renounce Islam?

<img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1pd62M" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1pd62M.jpg"/> <p> PUTRAJAYA: A previous nursery school instructor who is contesting her conversion to Islam at the age of four will now get the chance to argue her case in front of the High Court in Seremban. </p> <p> This follows the Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision today to reinstate the 47-year-old woman’s suit to allow for the merits of the case to be heard. </p> <p> A three-member bench chaired by Justice Lee Swee Seng said this was not an unsustainable case for the suit to be struck out. </p> <p> “It is premature to annul the suit when her constitutional right to freedom of religion runs contrary to what is claimed by the religious authorities,” Lee said, adding that the civil trial court has to decide if she was never a Muslim or if it was a case of renunciation. </p> <p> Also on the bench hearing the appeal were Justices Wong Kian Kheong and Ahmad Fairuz Zainol Abidin. </p> <p> A case management will be held on April 14 to fix the hearing dates. </p> <p> Last year, judicial commissioner Haldar Abdul Aziz ruled that the civil courts had no power to hear the woman’s case as it fell under the jurisdiction of the shariah court. </p> <p> He said the woman’s originating summons in the civil court against the Negeri Sembilan Islamic Religious Council, the national registration department (JPN) and government constituted an abuse of court process. </p> <p> Haldar said Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution demarcated the boundaries between the civil and shariah courts, and that each court was only permitted to hear and decide cases within their respective jurisdictions. </p> <p> The woman claims that her father, who became a Muslim, unilaterally converted her when she was four. </p> <p> The woman, now a mother of two, said she had been raised by her maternal aunt since then and had never recited the declaration of faith (kalima shahada) nor practised the Islamic way of life. </p> <p> She is seeking a declaration that she was never a Muslim, and wants JPN to change her religious status to non-Muslim. </p> <p> Attorneys S Karthigesan, A R Thamayanthy, and Ranunha Devi advocated on behalf of the woman. Counsel Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar supported the state religious authorities, whereas senior federal counsel Amalina Zainal Mokhtar spoke for JPN. </p>

High Court Weighs In: Was Woman Never a Muslim or Did She Renounce Islam?

PUTRAJAYA: A previous nursery school instructor who is contesting her conversion to Islam at the age of four will now get the chance to a...

Read more »

Federal Judge Rules on Relocation of Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil's Case to New Jersey

<p> A federal judge in New York ruled on the matter of Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate of Columbia University and a Palestinian activist will be moved from New York to New Jersey, where his attorneys will keep working on legal actions for his liberation. </p> <p> On Wednesday, Federal District Court Judge Jesse Furman ruled in favor of the Trump administration, stating that New York did not have jurisdiction over the case since Khalil was being held in custody in New Jersey when his lawyers submitted a motion contesting his arrest. </p> <p> Khalil was arrested by immigration officers About two weeks ago, near his apartment on the Columbia University campus. Khalil, a legal permanent U.S. resident who is married to a U.S. citizen, is a notable Palestinian activist and has held a key position in various movements. demonstrations against the conflict between Israel and Hamas On the Ivy League campus previously year. </p> <p> The Trump administration has labeled Khalil as a suspected terrorist supporter and an advocate for Hamas without presenting any proof. According to White House officials, Khalil circulated pamphlets endorsing Hamas, but his legal representatives refute this allegation. </p> <p> Although Furman’s ruling doesn’t affect where or whether Khalil remains incarcerated, he pointed out that Khalil’s attorneys allege the Trump administration is singling him out due to his involvement in protests supporting Palestinians, thereby infringing upon his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments. </p> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1AHGLo" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1AHGLo.jpg"/> <p> These are significant accusations and contentions that undoubtedly require thorough examination by a judicial authority," Furman stated. "The basic constitutional tenet ensuring every individual in the U.S. receives their rightful legal proceedings mandates nothing short of this. </p> <p> Currently, Khalil remains detained at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement center in Jena, Louisiana. He was moved there following his arrest in New York and a brief detention period in New Jersey. </p> <p> The spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, who had presented the arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, has not yet responded to requests for comments. </p> <h3> Judge rejects Trump administration’s attempt to shift case to Louisiana </h3> <p> In a victory for Khalil’s legal team, Furman ruled against moving the case to Louisiana. Additionally, Furman rejected the government’s request to completely dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition, contending that doing so could cause postponements and permit his possible swift expulsion prior to a judicial review of all his arguments. Furthermore, Furman upheld an earlier decision preventing Khalil’s deportation until his case has been adjudicated in court. </p> <p> "It will be left for that court to evaluate Khalil’s allegations along with the petitions he has submitted so far related to these claims, specifically a request to move him from his current location of incarceration to a detention center within this district," Furman stated. </p> <p> “The government first moved Mahmoud to Louisiana, then it tried to move his federal case there, too, hoping for better odds in court,” Ramzi Kassem, one of Khalil’s attorneys, said in a statement. “The judge rightly rejected that approach and transferred the case to a court in the greater New York City area, close to Mahmoud’s home, where the case and, most importantly, Mahmoud himself, belong.” </p> <p> The judge ordered the transfer of the case to take place immediately and waived a rule that normally allows seven days for a transfer. </p> <p> “This is a first step, but we need to continue to demand justice for Mahmoud. His unlawful and unjust detention cannot stand. We will not stop fighting until he is home with me,” Noor Abdalla, Khalil’s pregnant wife, said in a statement provided by New York Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Khalil. </p> <p> His detention was ordered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The Trump administration has been relying on a obscure section of US law which gives the Secretary wide authority to revoke a person’s immigration status if their “activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” to the country. </p> <img data-document-id="cms/api/amp/image/AA1AHSW0" data-reference="image" src="https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA1AHSW0.jpg"/> <p> His detention has touched off protests across the country following a Trump administration order to crack down on student activism on college campuses in opposition to the Israel-Hamas war. </p> <p> Khalil’s attorneys have filed multiple motions since his arrest – including a preliminary injunction seeking his release and to prohibit the Trump administration from executing its policy of arresting, detaining, and removing noncitizens who engage in constitutionally-protected speech in support of Palestinian rights or who are critical of Israel. </p> <p> The preliminary injunction, as well as a request to have Khalil physically transferred back to New York from Louisiana, will be heard by a federal judge in New Jersey. </p> <h3> Khalil speaks from inside detention </h3> <p> As the case is transferred across the Hudson River to New Jersey, Khalil spoke from inside the ICE detention facility where he is being held more than a thousand miles away from where he was arrested, describing himself as “political prisoner” in a letter dictated to his attorneys over the phone and reviewed by . </p> <p> “My arrest was a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza,” Khalil wrote. </p> <p> Khalil accused Columbia University of targeting him for his activism and enabling his detention by disclosing student records to Congress. In the letter, Khalil also accused the Trump administration of targeting international students, saying his case is evidence that Americans’ right to free political speech is at risk. </p> <p> “The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent. Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs,” Khalil wrote. </p> <p> A representative from Columbia University has not yet responded to requests for comments. </p> <p> Columbia University has not commented on Khalil’s arrest but has acknowledged the presence of immigration authorities on campus during the past few days. Additionally, at least two more students have faced immigration actions, one of whom is an Indian national holding a valid student visa. Who returned to Canada? due to her fear of being held back. </p> <p> In his letter, Khalil contended that the Trump administration is utilizing his imprisonment as a means to intimidate activist groups and individuals who oppose the administration's stances. He urged his followers to continue engaging in demonstrations. </p> <p> The stakes here go beyond just my voice; they encompass the basic civil rights of everyone," he penned. "Understanding that this juncture surpasses my personal situation, I still wish to freely witness the arrival of my newborn. </p> <p> <em> Lauren del Valle from 's contributed to this report. </em> </p> <p> To stay updated with the latest news and newsletters, sign up for an account here. </p>

Federal Judge Rules on Relocation of Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil's Case to New Jersey

A federal judge in New York ruled on the matter of Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate of Columbia University and a Palestinian activist will be ...

Read more »