House Passes Bill To Limit Nationwide Injunctions By Federal Judges

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. House of Representatives passed a Republican-backed bill on Wednesday to curb the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions—legal orders that can block federal policies across the entire country.

Dubbed the “No Rogue Rulings Act”, the bill, spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), passed narrowly with a vote of 219 to 213, receiving support from all but one Republican and zero votes from Democrats.

The legislation seeks to restrict district courts from issuing sweeping injunctions that affect non-parties in a case, instead limiting their rulings to the plaintiffs involved—unless Congress specifically authorizes a broader scope.

The move comes in response to more than 15 nationwide injunctions issued during the Trump administration, many of which blocked key parts of the president’s agenda, ranging from immigration reforms to efforts to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

“We’ve got the votes,” Issa confidently told Fox News Digital ahead of the vote. While he acknowledged the bill’s uphill battle in gaining Democratic support, he pointed out that even former Biden administration officials, such as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, have criticized the expansive use of nationwide injunctions.

Several Republican lawmakers framed the bill as a common-sense check on what they describe as judicial overreach. Rep. Derek Schmidt (R-Kan.), who added an amendment to discourage plaintiffs from “judge shopping” by filing cases in districts they believe will rule favorably, said the issue should transcend party politics.

“The basic policy of trying to rein in the overuse of nationwide injunctions was supported by Democrats before. It’s supported by Republicans now,” Schmidt said.

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) went further, accusing Democrat-appointed judges of behaving like “activist liberal lawyers in robes,” claiming their rulings have been politically motivated. Meanwhile, Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) argued that unelected judges shouldn’t have the power to block policies supported by tens of millions of Americans.

“There is no reason that activist judges whose authority does not extend nationally should be allowed to completely stop [Trump’s] agenda,” Feenstra said.

Critics of nationwide injunctions argue that the judicial branch has, at times, wielded outsized influence over national policy—particularly when lower court judges unilaterally block executive actions affecting the entire country.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) echoed that sentiment, characterizing the flurry of rulings as a “judicial vendetta” against President Trump’s policies. He said Issa’s bill would help ensure that “individual judges’ political beliefs” no longer obstruct the will of the electorate.

While some conservative lawmakers had pushed for more aggressive actions, including impeachment of judges they consider overreaching, GOP leaders ultimately coalesced around this legislative path as a more measured solution.

Despite its success in the House, the bill now faces a steeper challenge in the Senate. To clear the upper chamber’s 60-vote threshold, the legislation would require support from at least a handful of Democrats.

READ NEXT: Trump, The Law And Politically Active Judges