Activist judges are in for a shocking dose of reality after House Republicans successfully passed legislation to stop them from derailing President Donald Trump’s agenda through nationwide injunctions.
The new bill, approved by a vote of 219-213, would prevent liberal district court judges from unilaterally blocking the president’s policies across the entire country.
The House bill addresses what Republicans have long viewed as judicial overreach by rogue judges who impose their personal politics from the bench.
Representative Darrell Issa, who introduced the legislation, argued that single district judges should not have the power to halt presidential policies nationwide.
Under the proposed law, district court judges would be restricted to issuing orders that only affect parties directly involved in specific lawsuits.
The bill includes a limited exception for cases brought by multiple states, which would require a three-judge panel to review before any broader injunction could be issued.
House Republicans cited the alarming increase in nationwide injunctions during President Trump’s first term as clear evidence of judicial activism targeting his America First agenda.
These injunctions jumped dramatically after President Trump took office.
Liberal groups deliberately “forum shopped” by filing lawsuits in jurisdictions with Democrat-appointed judges known for their hostility toward conservative policies.
The legislation reflects growing frustration among conservatives who have watched single judges repeatedly block critical executive actions on immigration, border security, and regulatory reform.
Republicans argue that the Supreme Court should decide major policy decisions affecting the entire country or appeals courts, not lone district judges.
Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, but the legislation faces significant challenges there.
Republicans would need support from at least seven Democrats to overcome a filibuster, making final passage uncertain without additional legislative strategies.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan is also pursuing multiple avenues to rein in judicial overreach.
These included potential restrictions that would prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to enforce broad injunctions.
These efforts reflect a growing determination among Republican lawmakers to protect the Trump administration’s constitutional authority to implement its agenda.
Democrats opposed the bill, claiming courts are simply striking down illegal executive actions.
While the standalone bill may struggle in the Senate, Republicans have signaled they may attach these critical judicial reforms to must-pass spending legislation.
This strategy could force Democrats to choose between allowing these limits on judicial overreach or shutting down the government to protect activist judges.
