The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on a bill designed to rein in the growing trend of federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions—orders that halt executive actions across the entire country—regardless of jurisdiction. Spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the proposed legislation, titled the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” seeks to limit the reach of individual district court judges and redirect the balance of judicial authority.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) announced on Monday that a floor vote will take place next week. “Next week the House plans to vote on [Issa’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,” Scalise wrote in a post on X.
The push for judicial reform follows a series of rulings that have obstructed key initiatives of President Trump’s second-term agenda. Within the first few months of his administration, federal courts have already handed down more than a dozen nationwide injunctions. These include rulings that hindered the Department of Justice’s initiatives and blocked the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
While some in the Republican Party, including Trump himself, have called for impeachment proceedings against certain federal judges, House GOP leaders appear more focused on a legislative strategy. Lawmakers seem to favor systemic change rather than targeting individual judges, at least for now.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats have leaned heavily on these judicial decisions. With their party in the minority in both the House and Senate, they’ve used the courts as a political backstop. “We’re winning across the board,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, during a recent interview with CBS.
The legislation proposes amendments to U.S. Code that would restrict district courts from issuing broad injunctive relief. However, the bill includes a notable compromise: if a case is brought by two or more states across multiple judicial circuits, an injunction could still be issued—but only by a panel of three randomly selected judges. Additionally, the bill creates a pathway for prompt Supreme Court review.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced a companion measure in the Senate this week. Framing his version as a safeguard against judicial activism, Hawley described his bill as an effort “to STOP liberal judges’ serial abuse of their power by BANNING nationwide injunctions.”
Supporters of the bill argue that nationwide injunctions from single district court judges undermine democratic governance. When unelected judges in one jurisdiction can halt policies enacted by a duly elected executive across all 50 states, they say it distorts the intended separation of powers and centralizes authority inappropriately.
