The U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation on Wednesday aimed at restricting the authority of federal district judges to issue broad, nationwide rulings that could block executive branch policies.
The bill, known as the No Rogue Rulings Act, was introduced by a California Republican and seeks to limit the reach of federal district court injunctions, requiring that most judicial orders apply only to the specific parties involved in a given case.
The measure passed narrowly, with a 219 to 213 vote. Nearly every Republican supported the bill, while no Democrats voted in favor.
This legislative push follows more than a dozen nationwide injunctions that were issued against key initiatives under the previous Republican administration. These judicial blocks affected a range of policies, including proposed changes to birthright citizenship and efforts to reduce federal diversity-related programs.
The bill’s sponsor expressed confidence ahead of the vote, stating on Tuesday that the necessary support had been secured. Although he acknowledged the bill might struggle to attract bipartisan backing, he noted that even some legal officials from prior Democratic administrations have questioned the broad use of nationwide injunctions.
Another Republican representative from Kansas, who introduced an amendment aimed at preventing the strategic filing of lawsuits in favorable jurisdictions, described the bill as a genuine example of commonsense reform. He pointed out that limiting such sweeping court orders was previously supported across party lines and hoped it could once again gain bipartisan support.
A representative from Texas, also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, argued that certain lower court judges have overstepped their role, acting more like political activists than impartial adjudicators. He said the legislation is necessary to rein in judicial overreach and preserve the integrity of national policy decisions.
Echoing similar sentiments, a lawmaker from Iowa stressed that tens of millions of Americans had voted for the prior administration’s platform and that single judges should not have the power to halt policies intended to fulfill that mandate.
Despite some early internal disagreements over how best to respond to judicial opposition to executive policies, Republican lawmakers ultimately coalesced around this legislative approach. One congressman from Indiana, who also supported impeachment efforts against certain judges, stated that broad court orders had impeded both the will and safety of the American public.
He added that the bill would help ensure that judges’ personal beliefs don’t interfere with implementing policies backed by voters. While some conservatives previously favored a more direct confrontation—such as removing specific judges—House leadership opted for a legislative strategy they believe is more effective and sustainable.
Although the bill has cleared the House, its future remains uncertain in the Senate, where it will require support from several members of the opposing party to meet the 60-vote threshold for passage.
For more political updates, visit, DC Brief.
