Staff Reports
The No Rogue Rulings Act has taken center stage in the U.S. House of Representatives, where it recently passed with a vote that showcased the classic partisan divide in Washington. This legislation, spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, intends to clip the wings of federal district judges who have made it their mission to block the Trump Administration’s agenda at will. Under this new bill, the power of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions could be effectively curtailed, which sounds like a win for common sense.
Recent months have seen a surge in the number of nationwide injunctions issued by judges, particularly those appointed by previous administrations. These judicial interventions have caused considerable hiccups in the execution of key policies pushed by the Trump team. Just when one thought the courts were meant to interpret the law, a judge in D.C. displayed their creativity by blocking the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act—an established law that has been on the books since 1798—allegedly to protect a flight filled with Venezuelan gang members. Apparently, flight plans have become more sacred than national security.
In a delightful twist of fate, the Supreme Court recently overturned that misguided ruling, marking a significant victory for the Trump Administration in what has been an arduous second term. This newfound momentum has propelled Issa’s bill to the forefront, though it came through the House mostly along party lines, with one Republican inexplicably voting against it alongside 212 Democrats. One can hardly be surprised; after all, it’s an election year, and Democrats seem keen on protecting their judicial allies rather than serving the public’s interests.
House Passes Bill To Reign In 'Activist' Judges Thwarting Trump's Agendahttps://t.co/rOdLZ8LQCf
— Sheri™ (@FFT1776) April 10, 2025
Issa’s legislation aims to ensure that judges stick to their knitting and only rule on cases that directly affect the parties involved, rather than wielding their hammers across the entire nation. This shift is a common-sense approach that appears to have been lost on the other side of the aisle. Even some Democrats had previously acknowledged the overreach of district courts, proving that sanity can sometimes find footing when it’s not squashed by political expedience.
Backing up Issa’s battle against judicial tyranny is Rep. Derek Schmidt from Kansas, who introduced an amendment to prevent the pesky practice of “judge shopping”—the strategic maneuvering of cases to friendly courts. Schmidt’s recognition that there’s nothing commonsensical about adopting a judicial playground to further grievance policies hits the nail on the head. Meanwhile, comments from Rep. Lance Gooden emphasize the necessity of reigning in judges displaying political bias, reinforcing the argument that this bill is crucial for accountability in the judicial realm.
Should this bold piece of legislation clear the Senate, which might require some cooperation from reluctant Democrats, it could finally help curb the frustratingly frequent meddling of activist judges who seem to cherish the sound of their own gavel more than the rule of law. The hope remains that Congress can collaboratively address this judicial vendetta against the Trump Administration and ensure that the will of the American people is truly recognized.
