House Republicans scored a significant victory in their battle against “activist judges” as legislation to limit nationwide injunctions passed with a narrow majority, setting the stage for a contentious Senate battle.
Key Takeaways
- The U.S. House passed a bill to prevent federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, with a slim 219-213 vote mostly along party lines
- The legislation would restrict judges to making decisions that apply only to parties directly involved in lawsuits, except for cases brought by multiple states
- The White House supports the measure, citing concerns about judicial overreach undermining presidential authority
- Critics argue the bill weakens constitutional checks and balances by limiting judicial oversight of executive actions
- The bill faces significant hurdles in the Senate, where it would need support from at least seven Democrats to advance
Republicans Move to Curb Judicial “Overreach”
In a move that could significantly change how federal courts shape national policy, the House of Representatives has approved legislation that would prevent district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. The bill passed with a vote of 219 to 213, largely along party lines, highlighting the partisan divide over judicial power limits. This legislation would restrict federal judges to issuing orders that apply only to the specific parties involved in lawsuits, rather than imposing nationwide blocks on government policies or executive orders.
Representative Darrell Issa, who introduced the bill, has been vocal about his concerns regarding the current system. The Supreme Court “must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes that they can make the law of the land,” Issa stated. The legislation makes a notable exception for cases brought by multiple states, which would require a three-judge panel rather than a single judge to make such determinations.
Today, House Republicans passed the No Rogue Rulings Act.
No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President’s constitutional powers.
We’re shutting down the judicial coup. pic.twitter.com/5Lcf51n1LI
— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) April 10, 2025
White House Support Amidst Judicial Tensions
The White House has thrown its support behind the legislation, criticizing federal courts for issuing injunctions that allegedly undermine presidential authority. This position comes at a time when many of President Trump’s executive orders have faced significant legal challenges, with judges frequently suspending them on grounds that they overstep presidential powers. The administration views this bill as a necessary correction to restore the proper balance of power between branches of government.
Recent judicial rulings have intensified this debate. Federal judges in both Texas and New York have blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which the administration had invoked against alleged Venezuelan gang members. These rulings have prompted increased criticism of the judiciary from the White House, escalating tensions between the executive and judicial branches. President Trump previously went so far as to call for the impeachment of a federal judge who halted a deportation initiative, a move that drew a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Senate Hurdles and Constitutional Debate
Despite clearing the House, the bill faces significant challenges in the Senate. It would require support from at least seven Democrats to advance, a tall order given the current political climate. Similar proposals have previously failed to gain approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggesting an uphill battle ahead. Republicans argue that the legislation represents a constitutional check against judges exercising political influence rather than strictly interpreting the law.
Supporters of the bill point to statistics showing a marked increase in nationwide injunctions since President Trump took office, arguing that this trend represents judicial activism rather than proper legal interpretation. They maintain that nationwide policy decisions should properly be left to appeals courts or the Supreme Court, where multiple judges can consider the constitutional implications. Critics counter that limiting judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions weakens an essential check on executive power and could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to remain in effect for extended periods while legal challenges work their way through the courts.
