House Passes Bill Limiting Federal Judges’ Authority to Block Presidential Policies
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday limiting the authority of federal judges to block presidential policies.
The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (H.R. 1526) prohibits federal district court judges from issuing “nationwide injunctions,” thereby blocking presidential policies as they apply to everyone, everywhere, rather than only to the parties before the court.
Nationwide injunctions effectively grant a single federal district judge “veto” power over executive branch policies, contravening the will of tens of millions of Americans.
The bill:
- Restores principles of federalism by clarifying that judicial orders cannot bind non-parties to litigation before a court.
- Stops single district court judges from solely determining national policy – an authority the Constitution reserves for Congress, the President, and, in limited instances, the Supreme Court.
- Creates an exception for certified class action lawsuits and establishes a three-judge appeals process that can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
The House approved the bill in an 219-213 vote. All but one Republicans voted in favor of the bill; all Democrats opposed it.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sponsored the legislation and issued a statement after the bill passed the House:
In recent days, federal judges have issued dozens of orders upending the administration’s new policies. The New York Times reports at least 70 rulings have been issued against the Trump administration’s initiatives as of April 10.
Federal judges have issued orders:
- Blocking the Pentagon from excluding “transgender” troops from the U.S. military.
- Ordering the Trump administration to return hundreds of members of Tren de Aragua, a designated foreign terrorist organization, to American soil. The U.S. Supreme Court has since stepped in and reversed the district court’s order.
- Prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration from removing webpages promoting “gender ideology” and scrubbing the term “pregnant people” from their websites.
- Blocking President Trump’s order defunding medical institutions that provide harmful and damaging transgender drugs and surgeries to children and teens.
- Mandating the U.S. Department of Justice house men who claim they are women in women’s prisons and provide them with feminizing hormones.
- Forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to provide money to Citibank for “climate programs.”
The practice of federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions is relatively recent in American history.
Federal judges issued 15 nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration in February 2025 alone, compared to 14 against the Biden administration over four years, 12 against the Obama administration in eight years, and 6 against former President George W. Bush’s administration.
At least four justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have expressed reservations about district judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
“Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope,” Justice Gorsuch wrote in a January 2020 concurring opinion, “these orders share the same basic flaw – they direct how the defendant must act towards persons who are not parties to the case.”
Justice Gorsuch opined in a 2024 opinion that universal injunctions allow “district courts … to govern an entire State or even the whole Nation from their courtrooms.”
Justice Clarence Thomas has called nationwide injunctions “legally and historically dubious.”
H.R. 1526 now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration. It would need the approval of 60 Senators break the filibuster and proceed to a final vote.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has already introduced a similar bill in the Senate, but it’s not clear when – or if – the Senate will consider the legislation.
Congress is wrestling with whether the president, elected by 78 million voters; or unelected, unaccountable federal judges, can direct the policies of the executive branch. It’s a deeply important civics question – and its answer will determine whether we have a government “of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,” or whether we’re ruled by unelected individuals in black robes.
Related articles and resources:
Judicial Tyranny: Solutions to the Problem of Rogue Federal Judges
Judicial Tyranny: Do Federal Judges Have Authority Over the Executive Branch?
Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Ban on ‘Transgender’ Service Members
Trump Victory Likely Cements Conservative Supreme Court for Decades to Come
‘Supreme Court Reform’ is Code for Putting More Liberals on the Bench
Photo from Getty Images.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
