On Wednesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation aimed at curbing what some Republicans deem judicial overreach, specifically targeting the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This move comes in the wake of several district judges imposing broad injunctions against former President Trump’s swift governmental initiatives, often in response to various lawsuits.
The legislation, which narrowly passed with a vote of 218 to 214, explicitly prohibits any U.S. district court from issuing orders for injunctive relief that extend beyond the parties involved in the case at hand. In simpler terms, judges will now be limited to ruling only on the matters directly affecting those who are parties to the litigation.
The bill, aptly named “The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025,” was sponsored by U.S. Representative Darrell Issa from California. Issa contends that the legislation addresses “a major malfunction of judicial activism.” He stated, “This bill won’t just tackle egregious instances like Judge Boasberg’s controversial demands on the President and his administration; it serves as a comprehensive solution to ensure that such issues do not arise in any federal court, thereby restoring the appropriate balance within our judicial system.”
Interestingly, while all Democrats present opposed the bill, its passage saw a strong majority of Republicans rallying behind it, with only two dissenters in their ranks. This partisan split highlights the larger ideological battle currently playing out over the perceived role of the judiciary in American governance.
The bill’s passage aligns with a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that federal district courts lack the jurisdiction to prevent the President from deporting Venezuelan gang members. This ruling further underscores the ongoing tension between judicial authority and executive power, a dynamic that continues to shape the American political landscape.
Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.
