In a move soaked in political theater and constitutional consequence, House Republicans have thrown their weight behind a bill that could redraw the lines of judicial power in the U.S.—all in a bid to stop federal judges from derailing Donald Trump’s presidential agenda with sweeping nationwide rulings.
The legislation, dubbed the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” narrowly passed the House in a 219-213 vote, driven almost entirely by party loyalty. Its core ambition? To block judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that have, time and again, frozen Trump’s executive actions in their tracks—on everything from immigration to government rollbacks.
According to its Republican backers, the bill is a long-overdue correction to what they see as a growing abuse of judicial authority. Representative Darrell Issa, who championed the bill, accused “left-leaning activists and ideological judges” of using the courts as a blunt instrument to sabotage Trump’s presidency—particularly since his return to the Oval Office.
“This isn’t justice, it’s political warfare dressed in a robe,” Issa declared on the House floor. “It’s time to stop letting one judge become a one-person veto over the will of a duly elected administration.”
The bill doesn’t eliminate all sweeping rulings, but it does tighten the reins. Judges could still issue nationwide decisions—if the case is a class action. Disputes involving multiple states would go before a randomly assigned three-judge panel, with a direct line of appeal to the Supreme Court.
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson framed the legislation as a constitutional reset, a legal guardrail to stop “activist judges” from playing policymaker. “This isn’t how the framers intended it,” he told a friendly Fox News audience earlier in the week. “One unelected judge shouldn’t have the power to grind a presidency to a halt.”
Democrats aren’t buying it. To them, the bill is less about principle and more about shielding Trump from legal accountability. Representative Jamie Raskin didn’t mince words, calling it a “judicial muzzle” designed to keep courts from standing in the way of potentially unlawful executive behavior.
“This bill wouldn’t just tie judges’ hands—it would blindfold the entire judiciary when it comes to stopping unconstitutional power grabs,” Raskin warned. He pointed to past rulings that blocked Trump-era attempts to gut birthright citizenship as examples of how nationwide injunctions have upheld the rule of law.
The U.S. Supreme Court, now anchored by a 6-3 conservative majority, hasn’t yet ruled on the Trump administration’s request to limit nationwide injunctions. But in recent months, it has handed Trump a string of quiet victories, pausing court orders that had overturned his firings, education funding cuts, and deportation efforts tied to a centuries-old law.
Despite the House passage, the bill’s future in the Senate remains murky. Republicans control the chamber by a slim margin and will need 60 votes to move the legislation forward—an unlikely prospect unless a handful of Democrats break ranks.
Still, the message from House Republicans is clear: They’re no longer content to battle their political opponents at the ballot box alone. Now, they’re aiming for the bench.
