House Votes On Bill Regarding Orders Issued By Judges

By
Gregory McMullen
-

On Wednesday night, the House of Representatives took a decisive step to confront one of the most persistent threats to the Trump administration’s agenda: activist judges wielding nationwide injunctions like political weapons. By a vote of 219 to 213, the House passed the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (NORRA), legislation spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) that aims to restore balance in the federal judiciary and curb the abuse of judicial power.

Only one Republican, Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), voted against the bill. Every other Republican stood behind it, signaling that the GOP is no longer willing to let unelected judges derail a duly elected president’s constitutional mandate.

The crux of the legislation is simple but significant: district courts would no longer be allowed to issue injunctions that apply beyond the parties involved in a case. Exceptions would exist for narrowly defined class-action scenarios and cases brought by multiple states across different judicial circuits — but even then, any injunction would have to come from a randomly selected three-judge panel, and remain subject to appeal.

President Donald Trump has already backed the bill, issuing a Statement of Administration Policy calling it a necessary course correction.

“Activist Federal courts are weaponizing [injunctions] in an attempt to undermine President Trump’s legitimate powers under Article II of the Constitution,” the statement declared.

The message was clear: this is about preserving the separation of powers, not enabling authoritarianism — contrary to how the left would frame it.

Rep. Issa made no attempt to mask the seriousness of the situation:

“Practically every week, another federal judge issues yet another nationwide injunction… This isn’t even close to a legal disagreement — it is the Trump Resistance in Robes.”

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) added his support, stating:

“By limiting judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, NORRA ensures that policy decisions remain with the democratically elected branches, not unelected judges.”

The data backs him up. The number of injunctions issued against President Trump far exceeds those issued under Obama or Bush, and these rulings have delayed or outright blocked key reforms — from immigration enforcement to executive orders on government efficiency.

One name stands out: Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for D.C., has become a symbol of this unchecked judicial activism. Boasberg’s rulings have repeatedly obstructed Trump-era initiatives — including a recent attempt to block deportations of Venezuelan gang members using the Alien Enemies Act.

That overreach was slapped down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision this week, which lifted Boasberg’s stay and cleared the way for deportations to continue. Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed that enforcement is moving forward.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX), who introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, celebrated the bill’s passage, writing:

“No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President’s constitutional powers. We’re shutting down the judicial coup.”

This legislation doesn’t just protect Trump — it protects the presidency. By stripping district judges of the ability to override national policy with the stroke of a pen, NORRA reinforces the foundational principle that laws and policies must originate from the branches accountable to the people.

Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-MI) summarized it best:

“We upheld the constitutional authority of checks and balances and protected the integrity of our democracy.”

The Senate now holds the next move. With Republican control, momentum is building — and if NORRA reaches Trump’s desk, his advisers say he’ll sign it without hesitation.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR