House Republicans are advancing a bill to curb district judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions, aiming to prevent what they view as judicial obstruction of President Trump’s agenda.
Quick Takes
- The “No Rogue Rulings Act” would restrict district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, limiting rulings to only the parties directly involved in cases
- House Republicans are targeting Judge James Boasberg, who blocked deportations of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members to Central America
- Nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration have significantly increased compared to previous administrations
- Some Republicans have called for impeaching judges, though Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly rebuked this approach
- The bill has cleared the Judiciary Committee and is scheduled for a House floor vote next week
Republican Push to Limit Judicial Obstruction
The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on legislation aimed at limiting the power of federal judges to halt presidential policies through nationwide injunctions. The “No Rogue Rulings Act,” introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) and backed by Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), would amend the U.S. Code to prevent district court judges from issuing sweeping injunctions that impact the entire country. The bill comes as multiple Trump administration initiatives have been stalled by judicial rulings, including efforts to deport suspected gang members and executive actions on immigration policy.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise announced the upcoming vote, stating that the bill would “limit the judicial overreach of partisan federal judges issuing political nationwide injunctions to impede President Trump’s agenda the majority of American voters elected him to carry out.”
🚨 NEWS → Next week the House plans to vote on @repdarrellissa's No Rogue Rulings Act to limit the judicial overreach of partisan federal judges issuing political nationwide injunctions to impede President Trump's agenda the majority of American voters elected him to carry out.
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) March 24, 2025
Judge Boasberg at Center of Controversy
U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg has become a focal point of Republican frustration after halting deportation flights of suspected members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Boasberg’s restraining order requires individual judicial reviews for Venezuelans declared alien enemies before deportation, effectively blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. This law, which the administration has used to justify deportations to El Salvador, has raised human rights concerns among immigration advocates.
President Trump has expressed frustration with the judicial roadblocks to his administration’s policies. His team has appealed an injunction against his executive order on birthright citizenship to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Representative Brandon Gill has introduced legislation to impeach Judge Boasberg, though it faces long odds due to narrow Republican majorities in Congress. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly criticized the notion of impeaching judges over disagreements with their rulings.
Legislative Solution to Nationwide Injunctions
The No Rogue Rulings Act would significantly change how injunctions work by limiting their application to the parties directly involved in a case rather than applying them nationwide. This approach has gained support from Republican leadership, with House Speaker Mike Johnson stating that his conference was “working overtime to limit the abuses of activist federal judges.” The legislation has already cleared the House Judiciary Committee and is expected to receive a floor vote next week.
Senator Josh Hawley has introduced similar legislation in the Senate, characterizing his bill as an effort “to STOP liberal judges’ serial abuse of their power by BANNING nationwide injunctions.” Republicans point to data showing a significant increase in nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration compared to previous presidencies. Democrats, however, maintain that such judicial actions serve as essential checks on executive power, with Representative Jamie Raskin claiming, “We’re winning across the board” in reference to legal challenges to Trump policies.
Constitutional Separation of Powers at Stake
The debate over nationwide injunctions highlights tensions between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Jordan has argued that limiting injunctions to the specific parties involved in a case would be more appropriate than allowing a single district judge to effectively set national policy. “Instead of these federal district judges issuing an injunction that applies to the entire country, we think it should be limited to the parties of the case in that respective jurisdiction,” he stated.
While the bill is likely to pass the Republican-controlled House, its prospects in the closely divided Senate remain uncertain. The legislation represents a broader Republican strategy to address what they perceive as judicial overreach using legislative action to curtail district judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
