Activist judges across the nation have been stripped of their power after House Republicans passed crucial legislation to stop them from blocking President Donald Trump’s policies.
Approved on a 219-213 vote, the bill would prevent federal district judges from issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions that have repeatedly derailed the president’s America First agenda.
Representative Darrell Issa introduced the landmark legislation, which would limit district court judges to issuing orders that only affect parties directly involved in specific lawsuits.
This targeted approach would end the practice of “forum shopping,” where liberal activists strategically file cases in friendly jurisdictions to block conservative policies across the entire country.
“Single district judges are overreaching their authority,” Issa said when introducing the bill.
He pointed to the alarming trend of activist judges blocking President Trump’s executive actions while giving Democrat presidents a free pass.
The bill includes an exception for cases brought by multiple states, which would require a three-judge panel to issue broader injunctions.
The use of nationwide injunctions exploded during President Trump’s first term.
Liberal judges repeatedly blocked his immigration policies, border security measures, and other executive actions designed to protect American citizens.
These judicial roadblocks prevented the Trump administration from implementing the agenda that voters elected him to carry out.
House Republicans argue that blocking nationwide policies should be the role of appeals courts or the Supreme Court, not individual district judges with limited jurisdiction.
This reform seeks to restore balance by ensuring that major policy decisions receive appropriate judicial review rather than being derailed by a single judge’s personal political agenda.
Representative Jim Jordan is pursuing additional actions to limit judicial overreach and prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to enforce these broad injunctions.
Jordan and other Republicans have consistently highlighted how the courts have treated President Trump’s actions differently than those of previous presidents.
While Democrats claim courts are merely striking down “illegal” executive actions, they refuse to acknowledge that many of these judges were appointed specifically to advance progressive agendas.
The frequency and scope of these injunctions against President Trump’s policies have been slammed as a coordinated effort by the left to use the judiciary as a political weapon.
Senator Josh Hawley has introduced similar legislation in the Senate, although the bill faces significant challenges in the chamber.
Republicans would need support from seven Democrats to overcome a filibuster, and similar bills have previously stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Supporters argue that without these reforms to limit judicial activism, liberal judges would continue obstructing executive authority and substituting their political preferences for the will of American voters.
