House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan is pushing to limit federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block policies beyond the immediate parties in a case. Jordan argues this overreach has impeded the Trump administration’s agenda.
-
The House passed the No Rogue Judges Act (219-213), which would restrict district judges from issuing injunctions that apply nationwide except in narrow circumstances. The bill now awaits Senate approval and the president’s signature.
-
Jordan referenced Chief Justice John Roberts, who recently emphasized that disagreements with district court rulings should be resolved through appellate courts rather than broad injunctions.
-
Jordan anticipates some cases around this issue reaching the Supreme Court soon and remains hopeful the legislation will curtail the power of district judges.
-
The House Judiciary Committee also included a controversial provision in the fiscal 2025 spending bill, Section 70303, which would block courts from using federal funds to enforce contempt citations against government officials unless plaintiffs post a bond—an unusual requirement in federal policy cases.
-
Critics, mainly Democrats, say this provision weakens judicial authority and allows the Trump administration to ignore court orders. Republicans defend it as a safeguard against frivolous lawsuits.
-
Several judges, including Judge James E. Boasberg and Judge Paula Xinis, have threatened contempt rulings against Trump administration officials over immigration cases. Boasberg, in particular, faces articles of impeachment from a House Republican for blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
-
Republicans, including Rep. Brandon Gill, accuse some judges of abusing their power and hindering the president’s constitutional authority.
