Republicans in Congress are in distress. They’re angry as a grizzly bear with a sore head as they band together to stop liberal federal judges from issuing activist-style injunctions against the progress they’re trying to accomplish with President Donald Trump. Many judges have a bullseye target on their backs after recently issuing controversial rulings against Trump’s executive power, power to pass laws to save America from the alleged low morale and the weak-minded far-left Democrats.
Like a high-stakes poker game, meanwhile, Republicans are scrambling to undercut the adverse injunctions by lower court federal judges who they accuse of being dead-set on stopping Trump’s policies and killing the conservative agenda.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk have repeatedly called for the removal of judges who issue unconstitutional U.S.-wide injunctions against them in favor of progressive, liberal interest groups. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made an unusual statement dismissing the idea of impeaching federal judges.
Despite the long road ahead, Republicans in Congress remain passionately dedicated to weaken the autonomy of the federal judicial system to give Trump a better chance to implement the changes he desires. On April 9th, when ‘The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025‘ – abbreviated (NORRA) – passed from the House the Democrats argued incessantly that Congressional Republicans lost their moral vision by filing legislation to push Trump’s unconstitutional orders to deprive citizens and migrants of due process of law.
“It’s never been more obvious that parts of our federal judiciary have a major malfunction of judicial activism. Practically every week, we see yet another federal judge issuing another nationwide injunction in a gambit to stop President Trump from exercising his Constitutional Article II powers and carrying out the policy agenda he promised the American people he would make a reality,” said Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the sponsor of HR-1526, ‘The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025.’
Issa lit a blaze under the feet of the federal judges over their willingness to grand slam the nagging injunctions against Trump’s executive actions. When Issa introduced the bill to the House Judiciary Committee during the second week in April, he brought a chart, pointing to the 64 injunctions Trump received in his first term — far above former Presidents Biden (14), Obama (12), or Bush (6).
“Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable. Without them, millions of people could be harmed by these illegal or unconstitutional government policies,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington., in a article published by The Hill.
U.S. Congressional Hearings: TV Video Shows Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal Arguing Against HR-1526 Bill Limiting Injunctions Against Certain Federal Judges: The Hill/Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), nationwide injunctions
Boasberg Issues Adverse Rulings
Republicans engaged a firefight with U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg after he imposed a U.S.-wide temporary injunction against the Trump administration’s plan to deport Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.
Ronald P. Boucher wrote in the WeThePeople blog, On March 15, 2025, Federal Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order halting the lawful deportation of over two hundred sixty foreign nationals alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational gang known for murder, extortion, and human trafficking.
This order directly obstructed executive enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act and contradicted a recent Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the administration’s authority to proceed.
In dramatic fashion, Trump appeared on nationwide television and demanded the impeachment of Boasberg, while other GOP Republicans expressed deepest concerns about a single judge’s power to obstruct a national policy set by the White House.
“Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges whom they sought out to take their cases and weaponize nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” Issa stated, his voice dripping with scorn.
What Injunctions Mean
An injunction is a legal court order issued by a judge or an ‘appellate court of judges’ to stop a person, corporation, governor, or president from carrying out a course of action that can have an adverse effect against another party or parties.
There are three categories of injunctions: permanent injunctions, temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions. Both temporary restraining orders (TRO) and preliminary injunctions (PI) are considered equitable remedies. These orders can be granted by the judge at the outset of a lawsuit to prevent the offending party from participating in actions considered damaging to the other side.
Are Judges Role-Playing as Activists to Halt Republicans’ Express?
The frequency of nationwide injunctions handed down by certain federal judges has escalated during Donald Trump’s second term in office. Republicans are livid. They argue that all the unnecessary injunctions come from none other than “activist liberal judges.” In response, Democrats countered with their arguments that the judiciary is stopping unlawful executive orders carried out by the Trump administration. They also point out that several judges issuing these injunctions had been appointed by Republican presidents.
Desperate to halt the onslaught of the injunctive actions against Trump’s bold promises to – “Make America Great Again,” the House of Representatives in Congress voted(219-213) among the majority of Republicans to pass the bill designed to stop federal district court judges from granting nationwide injunctions, which serve to block Trump’s controversial executive orders.
According to Section 1370(a) of the “No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025”, “no United States district court shall issue any order of an injunctive relief, except in cases where such an order is applicable solely to restrict the actions of a party involved in the case before that district court.”
“Time and time again, rogue judges have asserted as though they were five of the nine members of the Supreme Court,” Issa said in a quote in Politico Magazine. “The reality is, every judge is considering himself not to be an associate justice, not to even be the chief justice, but, in fact, to be a combination of the justice and the president of the United States. This demands that we take action, make a change, and make it quickly.”
A Democrat Declared, “If You Don’t Like Injunctions, Don’t Do Unconstitutional”
“We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d’etat,” said Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo, during interview with Associated Press reporter. Democrats stated that Trump’s manic dependence on executive orders to implement his wayward goals and deliberately bypass the congressional voting process contributes to the increasing frequency of the courts ruling against him.
For example, in selected cases, the federal judges who ruled against Trump scrutinized whether the dismissals of federal employees, the halting of federal funding, and the closure of longstanding federal offices constitute illegal actions by the executive branch and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
“If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That is simple,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Washington.
Mike Zamore, ACLU National Director of Policy and Government Affairs, released the following statement:
“This bill—if passed by the Senate — will prohibit federal district courts from issuing injunctive relief that extends beyond the parties of a particular case. In essence, federal district courts would no longer be able to issue nationwide injunctions when examining federal policies, even if those policies have nationwide effects. These types of injunctions ensure that courts can prevent civil rights and liberties violations for thousands — and at times millions — of people who are in similar positions to a case’s litigants.” Zamore added, “These injunctions have been used in multiple instances during both Democratic and Republican presidencies, including to block potentially unlawful executive orders or federal policies with devastating consequences while legal challenges could proceed.”
Democrats questioned why Republicans didn’t show outrage over the injunctions filed against former president Joe Biden.
“Where were my colleagues when 14 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents issued injunctions against policies that the Biden administration was pursuing over the course of the last four years? Where were they? Nowhere to be found,” said Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo. “Spare me the feigned indignation.”
How NORRA Works
But the new ‘NORRA legislation’ offered by Rep. Issa proposes a different tactic when two or more states from other courts intervene against the Trump administration’s executive powers: Norra’s law works this way: [The] case will be referred to a panel of three judges. This panel may issue an injunction that could otherwise be disallowed under subsection (a), and the justices must take into account the interests of justice, the potential for irreparable harm to non-parties, and the maintenance of the constitutional separation of powers when deciding whether to grant such an order.
Additionally, [The] case shall be referred to a three-judge panel, and the law reads: Furthermore, [The] three-judge panel may issue an injunction that would otherwise be prohibited under subsection (a) and shall consider the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable harm to non-parties, and the preservation of the constitutional separation of powers in determining whether to issue such an order.
Rep. Issa gleefully discussed his thoughts about the pending legislation when he wrote a brief message on his official X account, “We took on the activist judges and their rogue rulings. Now it’s on to the Senate to send this to the desk of [Donald Trump].”
Issa and other Republican senators have accused federal judges of abusing the court system by legislating from the bench and attempting to defund courts by issuing nationwide orders blocking many of Trump’s directives. Democratic senators have taken the opposite stance, expressing concerns that the Trump administration is weaponizing executive orders in a broader attempt to erode the nation’s fundamental rights and democratic values.
Nationwide Injunction Tracker
The Congressional Research Service officials said the difficulties of obtaining an accurate tally of nationwide injunctions is challenging. Since it is not a legal term with a specific definition, the counts differ depending on the approach used. However, Congressional Research reported 86 nationwide injunctions issued during Donald Trump’s first term and 28 cases under Joe Biden’s administration. As of March 27, it identified 17 nationwide injunctions in the second term of Trump.
ACLU’s Mike Zamore further explains why Issa’s bill shouldn’t pass.
“The House majority voted for another step towards unchecked presidential power. When people felt the Biden administration infringed their rights with its COVID vaccine mandate for employees of federal contractors, they got a nationwide injunction. When our newest citizens were threatened by the Trump administration’s executive order targeting the Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, their mothers got a nationwide injunction. This isn’t a partisan question. If we want presidents to obey the law, courts need to be able to stop them when they’re overstepping. The Senate needs to reject this bill.”
As Republicans find it challenging to gather sufficient backing to impeach judges they oppose, the ‘No Rogue Rulings Act,’ as stated, has already successfully moved through the House. A hard-line conservative strategy it is. But it aims to stop district court judges from imposing nationwide injunctions, which have, up to this point, blocked several of Trump’s executive privileges to carry out constitutional laws. However, the future of the ‘No Rogue Rulings Act depends on whether it passes in the Senate.
These matters are a developing story: We’ll give updates if the Senate passes the ‘No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025’
Texas-based NewsBlaze Reporter C. Walker writes about politics, court decisions, criminal justice, small business, community news, and technology. He can be reached at newsjournalist360@gmail.com
