The House of Representatives has passed the no rogue rulings act, aiming to restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block executive actions.
At a Glance
- House approved the No Rogue Rulings Act to limit nationwide injunctions by federal judges
- Bill passed with a 219–213 vote, primarily along party lines
- Republicans argue it curtails judicial overreach; Democrats contend it undermines judicial independence
- Legislation faces uncertain future in the Senate due to the 60-vote threshold
Restricting Judicial Power
On April 9, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the No Rogue Rulings Act with a narrow 219–213 vote. The bill seeks to limit federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that can halt executive actions across the entire country. This legislative move comes in response to a series of judicial rulings that have obstructed significant parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda, particularly in areas like immigration and administrative reforms, according to Reuters.
Watch Reuters’ report on the House’s passage of the No Rogue Rulings Act.
The bill, introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), mandates that judges restrict rulings to specific plaintiffs, except in class-action lawsuits. It also stipulates that cases involving multiple states be reviewed by a three-judge panel with direct appeals to the Supreme Court. Republicans argue that this measure is necessary to prevent judicial overreach and preserve executive authority. House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized, “No one single activist judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction to stop a president’s policies.”
Nationwide Injunctions in the Crossfire
Nationwide injunctions have become a pivotal tool in stymying a president’s ambitions, especially those with broad executive authority. The GOP’s move attempts to shield legislative and executive acts from being invalidated across the country by individual judges. However, this contentious legislation has Democrats and civil rights organizations fearing for the judiciary’s role as a critical balance. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) countered, “If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff — it’s that simple,” as reported by the Associated Press.
The bill now advances to the Senate, where it faces significant opposition and an uncertain future due to the need for a 60-vote majority to pass. The Trump administration has expressed support for the measure, portraying it as a defense of the President’s executive powers against judicial activism.
Broader Implications
Legal scholars and policymakers continue to debate the appropriateness and legality of nationwide injunctions, which have been increasingly used to check expansive presidential actions. The Supreme Court, holding a conservative majority, has yet to directly rule on the broader use of these injunctions. As the legislative effort moves to the Senate, the balance between judicial oversight and executive authority remains a contentious issue in American governance, as noted by Reuters.
