On April 9, 2025 the House of Representatives voted on the No Rogue Rulings Act bill. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). H.R. 1526 would prohibit a federal district court judge from issuing an injunction or prohibition regarding a case unless the injunction or prohibition only applied to the parties of the particular case before the district judge’s court. The bill passed the House by a vote of 219 – 213 in favor of the bill, almost exclusively on party lines. One Republican voted against the bill, Rep. Mike Turner from Ohio.

The bill is in response to President Donald Trump and other Republicans anger at having a number of the President’s executive orders and policy proposals temporarily paused or put on hold by an order from a district court judge. During the first two months of the Trump Administration there have been seventeen nationwide injunctions that have been issued against a Trump Administration executive order or policy proposal. The injunctions have been comprised of temporary restraining orders (TRO) and preliminary injunctions (PI) and most have been applied nationwide. When a TRO or PI are issued in ordinary cases between parties the injunction usually prohibits one of the parties from taking a certain action before the case can be resolved at trial. But since cases brought against a Trump Administration executive order or policy affect the entire country as a whole, the TRO’s and PI’s that have been issued inevitably prohibited the executive order or policy proposal from being implemented for the time being nationwide. The No Rogue Rulings Act is intended to prevent federal district judges from issuing these injunctions by modifying how they may be implemented.

The bill will now move to the Senate where passage in that chamber seems highly unlikely. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis

Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration the President and many of his supporters have been angry that many of their executive orders and policy proposals have been temporarily halted and paused by the courts. Some GOP members have even openly called for judges to be impeached when a judge has issued rulings that they disagreed with. This prompted a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who stated, “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Nevertheless, GOP outrage at judges and the judiciary as a whole have persisted during the first two months of President Trump’s term.

The No Rogue Rulings Act bill has intensified this conflict because the bill and the changes and modifications it will provide are not necessary. It is merely a partisan reaction to rulings Republicans do not agree with and so now they are trying to “move the goal posts” to give their policy proposals a greater chance of success if challenged in a court of law. The purpose behind TRO’s and PI’s is not to rule whether a policy is good or bad. A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are often issued at the beginning of a case and merely questions whether a party should be prohibited from doing something while the case moves through trial. It is temporary in nature. A court could decide to allow a policy to be implemented or it could decide to block it’s implementation permanently. A permanent injunction would only come after a trial. A pause does not mean that a policy proposal is instantly rejected. This is what Trump Administration officials are failing to grasp about nationwide injunctions being put on pause temporarily.

Rep. Mike Turner, the only Republican to not support the No Rogue Rulings Act pointed out that “the judicial system works” and that this bill is not necessary. He also pointed out that even if a district judge issued a temporary national injunction like in the recent immigrant deportations flight case, the Supreme Court was there to strike down and overturn the injunction. The judiciary has protections and protocols in place to ensure that a party can appeal and still have their case heard on the merits. Rep. Hank Johnson from Georgia, a Democrat, called it a judicial system, “working exactly as it should.”

Predictably, the bill has gotten a very partisan response which has illustrated the underlying issues. Rep. Pramila Jaypal (D-WA) stated, “If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That simple” with the implication being that Trump is trying to change the rules because most of his actions are illegal. Republicans have countered that the bill is necessary because a constitutional crisis has emerged where radical “activist judges” have improperly usurped the power of the Executive Branch of the Government to implement their preferred agenda. But the fact of the matter is that Republicans have introduced a bill that is neither needed nor necessary. It is simply feigned indignation for their inability to craft an executive order or policy proposal that can withstand scrutiny during the early stages of a case. They’ve forgotten that these TRO’s and PI’s are temporary and that they can still win their cases at trial even though their policy is temporarily paused. And even if they don’t prevail at trial, the Trump Administration and their allies can appeal to the appropriate appeals court and eventually the Supreme Court. There is no need to change the scope and national reach of a federal district court’s ability to issue an injunction simply because a policy can’t be implemented right now. The No Rogue Rulings Act does nothing but exposes the Republicans and Trump Administration’s hostility towards the judiciary strictly for partisan reasons. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

• The Hill – analysis of the No Rogue Rulings Act bill.
• National Public Radio (NPR) – how the effort to rein in judges has divided the GOP.