House Republicans are advancing legislation to block federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump administration policies, as tensions escalate over a judge’s decision to halt deportations of alleged gang members.
Top Takeaways
- The “No Rogue Rulings Act” aims to restrict district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions that block President Trump’s policies
- The legislation was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa with support from Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan and is scheduled for a House vote next week
- The bill comes in response to Judge James Boasberg’s controversial order blocking deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members
- Some Republicans have proposed impeaching Judge Boasberg, though GOP leadership is focusing on legislative remedies
- If passed, the bill would limit injunctions to apply only to parties directly involved in a case, not nationwide
GOP Targets “Activist Judges” With New Legislation
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is preparing to vote on legislation that would limit the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions against Trump administration policies. The “No Rogue Rulings Act,” introduced by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), is scheduled for a floor vote next week. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise announced the upcoming vote as part of a broader Republican strategy to address what they view as judicial overreach by district court judges who have repeatedly blocked President Trump’s policy initiatives.
The legislation comes amid growing frustration among Republicans over Judge James Boasberg’s recent decision to block the administration’s deportation of alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador. Boasberg’s order requires individual judicial reviews for Venezuelans declared alien enemies before deportation, which the administration argues undermines national security efforts. The legal battle has become a flashpoint in the ongoing tension between the executive branch and the judiciary.
🚨 NEWS → Next week the House plans to vote on @repdarrellissa'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.
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) March 24, 2025
Judge Boasberg at the Center of Deportation Controversy
Judge James Boasberg has become a focal point of Republican criticism after halting deportation flights carrying suspected gang members. The judge rejected a Trump administration petition to lift his restraining order on deportations to El Salvador, which was issued in response to a challenge from five Venezuelans represented by the ACLU. The administration has been using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members, raising concerns about due process and human rights protections from critics.
President Trump has expressed significant frustration with Boasberg’s rulings, with some Republican lawmakers going as far as introducing legislation to impeach the judge, though they are unlikely to succeed given Republicans’ narrow majority in Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuked the idea of impeaching judges over disagreements with their rulings, suggesting a constitutional confrontation if such measures advance.
The Broader Battle Over Nationwide Injunctions
The proposed No Rogue Rulings Act would amend the U.S. Code to limit injunctions to the parties directly involved in a case, rather than applying them nationwide. This approach would allow the administration to continue implementing policies in jurisdictions not covered by specific court orders. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan have expressed strong support for the bill as part of a broader strategy to address what they view as judicial activism interfering with the president’s agenda.
“Time and again, solitary judges have usurped congressional intent and confronted President Trump, rather than dispassionately interpreted the law,” said Representative Issa.
Republican lawmakers point to statistics showing a significant increase in nationwide injunctions against Trump administration policies compared to previous administrations. The current dispute over deportations is just one of several legal battles facing the administration, including challenges to Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
While Republicans frame the issue as one of constitutional balance and proper judicial authority, Democrats have celebrated the courts’ interventions. Representative Jamie Raskin has declared “We’re winning across the board” regarding legal challenges to Trump policies. The debate highlights fundamental differences in how the two parties view the role of the judiciary in checking executive power, with Republicans emphasizing deference to the elected branches and Democrats supporting robust judicial oversight.
