In a move charged with political significance and constitutional implications, the House of Representatives passed the No Rogue Rulings Act this week, aiming to curtail the sweeping power of federal district judges to impose nationwide injunctions—an authority frequently used to block Trump-era policies during his administration. The bill, championed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), passed by a narrow margin, 219 to 213, with all but one Republican in favor and zero Democratic support.
At its core, the No Rogue Rulings Act seeks to narrow the focus of district courts to ruling on matters directly affecting the parties involved, rather than issuing broad, nationwide injunctions. The legislation is a response to more than 15 such injunctions that obstructed key Trump policies, ranging from immigration reform to rollbacks on DEI initiatives. In Issa’s words, this is not about politics—“We’re hoping some people look at it on its merits,” he said, emphasizing the bill’s goal of restoring judicial discipline and geographic limitations.
Today, House Republicans passed the No Rogue Rulings Act.
No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President’s constitutional powers.
We’re shutting down the judicial coup. pic.twitter.com/5Lcf51n1LI
— Congressman Brandon Gill (@RepBrandonGill) April 10, 2025
The House GOP has struggled in the past to unify around how best to counter what they label “activist judges.” While some conservatives initially pushed for impeachment proceedings against particular jurists, leadership opted for a more targeted and strategic approach—legislation with real teeth, and potentially more staying power. This bill reflects that strategy.
Judiciary Committee members like Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) argue that the bill is necessary to contain the influence of “Democrat-appointed liberal lawyers in robes.” For others like Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa), it’s a question of democratic will: “77 million Americans voted for [Trump’s] pro-American policies… Activist judges should not be allowed to stop that agenda.”
Interestingly, some Democrats, during the Biden administration, also raised concerns about the excessive reach of district courts. Even Elizabeth Prelogar, then solicitor general under Biden, criticized nationwide injunctions. That nuance may not sway current votes, but it speaks to a longer-term debate that transcends Trump alone.
Democrats insist there is a constitutional crisis just because they don’t like President Trump’s policies.
The actual crisis is activist judges trying to single-handedly stop the President’s agenda.
This week, the House will vote on @repdarrellissa’s No Rogue Rulings Act to… pic.twitter.com/pSun16wyLQ
— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) April 7, 2025
Still, the bill’s future remains uncertain. With the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, bipartisan support would be required for it to survive. Given the current polarization, especially over judicial matters, such a coalition seems distant, if not impossible—for now.
Whether or not the No Rogue Rulings Act becomes law, its passage in the House signals a growing movement to reassert legislative boundaries over the judiciary. If nothing else, it lays the groundwork for a broader debate about the balance of powers, the role of judges in a polarized America, and the mechanisms of resistance and reform when executive policies meet judicial checks.
This bill isn’t just about Trump. It’s about how America governs itself, and who gets the final say.
