Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
FIRST ON FOX: Republican Representative Darrell Issa has introduced a significant bill targeting federal judges who issue nationwide injunctions that disrupt a president’s political agenda. According to Issa, this has been an ongoing issue since Donald Trump took office.
The bill, titled the No Rogue Rulings Act, seeks to amend Chapter 85 of Title 28 of the United States Code. Its primary focus is the introduction of a stipulation regarding the limitation of authority to provide injunctive relief.
Under the proposed legislation, the text states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court.”
Since Trump assumed the presidency, more than 50 lawsuits have been filed against his administration by various activist groups, legal representatives, and local officials. These legal challenges have primarily arisen in response to over 60 executive orders, alongside numerous proclamations and memos put forth by the administration, as reported by Fox News Digital previously.
Issa asserts that the No Rogue Rulings Act would specifically limit the reach of nationwide injunctions. The objective is to prevent federal judges from issuing broad injunctions that apply beyond the immediate parties involved in legal cases. Furthermore, any injunction would only constrain the specific parties requesting relief, regardless of whether it pertains to enforcement actions or policy decisions.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Issa expressed his belief that the founders of the United States could not have anticipated a scenario where judges and members of the legislative branch unite to undermine the executive branch. He characterized the current practice of judge-shopping as a form of “judicial tyranny” and described it as a manipulation of the court system.
Issa’s office conveyed optimism that the proposed bill would garner bipartisan support within Congress and ultimately receive President Trump’s signature. They indicated that the bill is currently experiencing significant momentum.
Issa emphasized, “Nowhere in our Constitution is a single federal judge given absolute power over the President or the people of the United States.” This statement reflects his robust stance against the current judicial practices affecting the Trump administration.
The introduction of this bill comes at a time when the Trump administration has been vocally opposing a series of injunctions from courts nationwide. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt articulated the administration’s concerns during a press briefing last week. She stated, “Many outlets in this room have been fear-mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House. However, the real constitutional crisis is occurring within our judicial branch, where district court judges in liberal districts are misusing their power to unilaterally obstruct President Trump’s fundamental executive authority.”
Leavitt further asserted, “We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than impartial interpreters of the law. In just the last 14 days, at least 12 injunctions have been issued against this administration, often without any substantiated evidence or legal grounds for their decisions. This situation is part of a larger, coordinated effort by Democrat activists and is merely a continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump.”
Given the multifaceted challenges posed by judicial actions against executive authority, the No Rogue Rulings Act represents a potential pivot in how the judiciary interacts with the executive branch. Its future will depend not only on its acceptance in Congress but also on the broader political landscape as it relates to judicial authority and executive power.
This proposed legislation, while contentious, sheds light on the ongoing debate about the balance of power among the branches of government. As political tension continues to escalate, the implications of such bills will resonate through the legal landscape, influencing how future administrations might grapple with judicial interventions in presidential actions.
