In a move that critics warn would dangerously expand executive power, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill to restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions—orders that have repeatedly blocked controversial executive actions by Donald Trump. The legislation, dubbed the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” passed in a 219-213 vote along party lines and now heads to the Senate, where it faces difficult odds of advancing under the chamber’s 60-vote filibuster rule.
The bill’s passage comes amid a wave of legal challenges to Trump’s agenda, with several judges placing nationwide injunctions on executive orders that were deemed unconstitutional or in violation of federal law. Under the proposed legislation, judges would only be allowed to issue relief to the plaintiffs directly involved in a case, even if the challenged executive action is found unlawful. Nationwide injunctions would only be permitted in class action lawsuits.
“Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), the bill’s sponsor, in a statement promoting the measure.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), echoing Issa’s rationale, said on Fox News ahead of the vote, “No one single activist judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction to stop a president’s policies. That’s not the way the framers intended this to work, and we’re going to put them back in check.”
The use of nationwide injunctions—while historically rare—has increased significantly in recent decades, particularly during the presidencies of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden. Trump has faced more of these injunctions than any modern president, largely due to the legal community’s response to executive orders that critics argue flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. Just this year, three separate federal judges issued nationwide injunctions halting Trump’s efforts to redefine the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Opponents of the bill say its intent is not to correct judicial overreach but to eliminate a vital check on presidential power at a time when Trump’s executive actions are being frequently overturned by the courts.
“Here’s a message: if you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) in opposition to the bill.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, warned that the bill would prevent courts from halting even the most blatantly unlawful policies. “The whole idea of suddenly blocking nationwide injunctions because Donald Trump is losing every single day in court defeats the whole concept of the rule of law,” he said during a committee hearing last week.
Raskin noted that if the bill had already been in place, federal judges in Washington state, Massachusetts, and Maryland would have been blocked from issuing rulings that stopped Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship—efforts he described as “blatantly unconstitutional.”
The Trump administration has actively pushed back against nationwide injunctions, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to narrow their scope so that only plaintiffs in a case can benefit from the relief. The court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, has not yet ruled definitively on the practice but has signaled openness to limiting it. Recent decisions have favored the Trump administration, including orders halting rulings that required the rehiring of thousands of government employees, reinstating education grants, and blocking deportations based on a 1798 wartime law.
Supporters of the bill argue that courts are being misused to advance partisan objectives. “This Department of Justice has vigorously defended President Trump’s policies and will continue to do so whenever challenged in federal court by rogue judges who think they can control the president’s executive authority,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in response to Wednesday’s House vote.
But civil liberties groups and legal experts warn that the legislation would upend the balance of powers by stripping courts of the ability to issue meaningful remedies when executive actions violate the law.
Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union, which has frequently challenged Trump’s orders in court, criticized the bill’s passage: “The House majority tonight voted for another step towards unchecked presidential power.” He added, “This isn’t a partisan question. If we want presidents to obey the law, courts need to be able to stop them when they’re overstepping.”
Democrats also highlighted what they described as Republican hypocrisy in championing the bill. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colorado) pointed out that many Republican lawmakers had previously supported nationwide injunctions when they were used to block initiatives by Presidents Biden and Obama.
“Where were my colleagues when 14 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents issued injunctions against policies that the Biden administration was pursuing over the course of the last four years? Where were they?” Neguse asked. “Nowhere to be found. Spare me the feigned indignation.”
The bill’s Senate prospects are uncertain. Although Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority, they would need at least seven Democratic senators to join them in order to overcome a filibuster. A similar version of the bill is pending in the Senate, with Republican leaders expressing interest in advancing it alongside other judiciary-related reforms.
COMMENTS