Website 
https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
President Trump achieves a major victory as the House passes a landmark bill to finally put an end to rogue activist judges who have been issuing nationwide injunctions to obstruct his lawful executive actions.
At a Glance
- The House passed the No Rogue Rulings Act with unanimous Republican support to restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions outside their districts
- Rep. Darrell Issa introduced the bill to address the surge of injunctions targeting President Trump’s executive actions
- Democrats unanimously opposed the measure, claiming nationwide injunctions are necessary for “protecting democracy”
- The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration, with strong backing from President Trump
House Takes Action Against Judicial Overreach
In a decisive move to restore constitutional balance, the House of Representatives has passed legislation specifically designed to limit the power of activist federal judges. The No Rogue Rulings Act, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), aims to restrict federal judges to making decisions only within their district, preventing single judges from unilaterally blocking nationwide policies. This long-overdue reform addresses a problem that has plagued President Trump’s agenda since his first term, when numerous executive actions were stalled by strategic lawsuits filed before sympathetic judges.
The bill passed with strong Republican unity, reflecting the party’s frustration with what many conservatives view as judicial activism masquerading as legal interpretation. Since returning to office, President Trump has seen dozens of his lawful executive actions targeted through this tactic. Rep. Issa highlighted this pattern of obstruction during debate on the House floor, making it clear that this legislation is about restoring proper constitutional boundaries rather than partisan advantage.
Democrats Defense of Judicial Activism
Democratic lawmakers unanimously opposed the legislation, revealing their preference for judicial activism when it aligns with their political objectives. The party that once criticized nationwide injunctions during the Biden administration has now completely reversed its position, demonstrating that their principles shift with political expediency. Democrats also attempted to deflect attention from the core issue by proposing an unrelated resolution about violence against federal judges, which predictably failed.
“In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds. A district judge needs to be confined to their district and to people who are in their district,” said Rep. Darrell Issa.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s opposition to the bill revealed the left’s true strategy when she claimed, “If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff — it’s that simple. Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable.” This statement perfectly encapsulates how Democrats view unelected judges as a political backstop when they can’t win at the ballot box, attempting to redefine democracy as rule by judiciary rather than rule by the people’s elected representatives.
Bipartisan Hypocrisy on Judicial Power
In a rare moment of candor about Washington’s power games, Senator Chuck Grassley acknowledged the naked partisanship that often drives positions on judicial authority. The congressional record shows that both parties have historically flip-flopped on nationwide injunctions depending on who occupies the White House, though the current situation has reached unprecedented levels with dozens of Trump’s initiatives being blocked by individual judges.
“Most of us in this room have at various times supported or opposed universal injunctions. My fellow Republicans and I sometimes like them when there’s a Democratic president, and my Democratic colleagues probably like them right now, even though they criticized them a few months ago under President Biden,” admitted Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
The legislation represents a return to the traditional understanding of federal court jurisdiction. For most of American history, district court rulings applied only within their geographic boundaries. The recent practice of nationwide injunctions effectively allows a single judge, often strategically selected by activists, to substitute their judgment for that of the president on matters of national policy. This end-run around democratic processes has created a situation where unelected judges can halt policies supported by millions of American voters with the stroke of a pen.
Trump’s Broader Agenda Moves Forward
While the House works to rein in judicial overreach, President Trump continues to deliver on multiple fronts. His administration recently revitalized an important government website that had been neglected, making crucial information accessible again to the American public. In a significant diplomatic victory, an American citizen who had been detained in Russia for over a year was freed following President Trump’s direct intervention, demonstrating his continued effectiveness on the international stage.
“Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” explained Rep. Darrell Issa.
On the economic front, the European Union has delayed implementing countermeasures against Trump’s tariffs for 90 days, suggesting that his strong negotiating stance is already yielding results. These developments underscore why Americans returned Trump to the White House—his ability to deliver concrete results while fighting against entrenched interests that have blocked progress for decades. As the No Rogue Rulings Act moves to the Senate, it represents one more step toward restoring the constitutional balance that has been eroded by judicial overreach.