House Republicans finally moved to stop rogue liberal judges from sabotaging President Donald Trump’s agenda.
In a decisive 219-213 vote, the House approved a bill preventing federal district judges from unilaterally blocking nationwide policies, a tactic repeatedly used against the president’s executive orders.
Representative Darrell Issa, who introduced the bill, pointed to the alarming increase in nationwide injunctions as clear evidence of judicial overreach.
Only 27 such injunctions were issued during the 20th century, yet during President Trump’s first term alone, liberal judges issued 55 nationwide injunctions blocking his policies.
The legislation would restore balance by requiring appeals courts or the Supreme Court to rule on nationwide policy matters.
The House bill specifically targets a judicial practice that exploded during President Trump’s first administration.
Back then, a single district judge in a remote courtroom could halt presidential policies affecting the entire country.
Under the legislation, district court judges would be limited to issuing orders that only affect the parties directly involved in a specific lawsuit.
Exceptions would require three-judge panels for cases brought by multiple states.
The legislation faces challenges in the Senate, where it would need support from seven Democrats to advance past the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced a similar bill in the upper chamber, but previous attempts at reform have stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
House Republicans emphasized that blocking nationwide policies should properly be the domain of appeals courts or the Supreme Court—not isolated district judges.
This reform would prevent “forum shopping,” where liberal groups deliberately file lawsuits in districts with activist judges known to be hostile to conservative policies.
Right now, a single judge in a single district ultimately has veto power over presidential decisions.
Representative Jim Jordan is pursuing additional actions to limit judicial power, including measures to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to enforce these sweeping injunctions.
While these restrictions may not pass the Senate as standalone bills, Republicans could potentially attach them to essential spending legislation, forcing Democrats to consider the reforms.
Democrats predictably opposed the measure, claiming courts are simply striking down illegal executive actions.
The bill has been praised as a critical step toward restoring proper separation of powers and preventing activist judges from overriding the will of American voters.
The legislation would ensure more balanced, thoughtful judicial review by requiring higher courts to weigh in on nationwide policy matters.
It would also prevent individual judges from imposing their personal political preferences on the entire country.
