Republican-led US House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to curtail the ability of judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda have been stymied by such court rulings.
The House voted 219-213 along largely party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act, a bill that top Republican lawmakers have called a priority after numerous judges ruled against Trump’s executive orders and policies used to implement his immigration crackdown and government downsizing initiatives.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces long odds of securing the 60 votes needed to become law. Republicans have only a 53-47 majority in the Senate, where similar legislation to limit nationwide injunctions is pending.
Such nationwide orders from judges have risen over the last two decades in response to challenges to policies issued by Republican and Democratic administrations, prompting calls in both parties over the years for reform.
Yet the latest bill was introduced only after judges in some of the 170-plus lawsuits challenging Trump’s flurry of executive orders and initiatives began issuing a wave of rulings blocking policies they deemed unlawful or unconstitutional.
“Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges whom they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,” US Representative Darrell Issa, the bill’s lead Republican sponsor, said on the floor on Tuesday.
Under his bill, judges would have to limit the scope of their rulings to the specific parties before them, though they could still issue nationwide orders in class action lawsuits.
Cases by two or more states would be heard by randomly assigned three-judge panels, whose rulings could be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court.
Republican Speaker Mike Johnson has touted it as an alternative to calls by some of Trump’s allies in the chamber to impeach judges who block the Republican president’s agenda.
“No one single activist judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction to stop a president’s policies,” Johnson told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday night ahead of the vote. “That’s not the way the framers intended this to work, and we’re going to put them back in check.”
Democrats lambasted the bill as an effort to change the rules to ensure judges could not fully block anything unlawful Trump does while in office, after many of former President Joe Biden’s own initiatives were blocked by courts.
“The whole idea of suddenly blocking nationwide injunctions because Donald Trump is losing every single day in court defeats the whole concept of the rule of law,” Representative Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said at a committee hearing last week on the bill.
Raskin said had it been law, the bill would have prevented federal judges in Washington state, Massachusetts and Maryland from issuing the nationwide injunctions that have blocked Trump’s “blatantly unconstitutional” attempt to restrict automatic US birthright citizenship as part of his immigration agenda.
The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to narrow those injunctions to cover just the plaintiffs that brought the cases, saying the justices “should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched.”
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has yet to act on that request.
But it has handed Trump a series of recent victories, halting judges’ orders that required the administration rehire thousands of fired employees and reinstate millions of dollars in teacher training grants and blocked the administration from pursuing deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members using a 1798 wartime law, though that decision imposed limits.
The Trump administration welcomed Wednesday’s action in Congress, which a US Justice Department spokesperson said would “reinforce the separation of powers.”
“This Department of Justice has vigorously defended President Trump’s policies and will continue to do so whenever challenged in federal court by rogue judges who think they can control the president’s executive authority,” the spokesperson said.

WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump intensified his efforts to punish his critics on Wednesday by signing a pair of memoranda directing the Justice Department to investigate two officials from his first administration and stripping them of any security clearances they may have.
Trump’s targeting of Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security official in Trump’s first term, and Chris Krebs, a former top cybersecurity official, came as the president has sought to use the powers of the presidency to retaliate against his adversaries, including law firms.
Trump also on Wednesday retaliated against another law firm, Susman Godfrey, as he seeks to punish firms that have links to prosecutors who have investigated him or employed attorneys he sees as opponents.
Although Trump has ordered security clearances to be stripped from a number of his opponents, including former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, the president’s order Wednesday directing the Justice Department to broadly investigate the actions of Taylor and Krebs marks an escalation of Trump’s campaign of retribution since he returned to power.
Taylor, who left the Trump administration in 2019, was later revealed to be the author of an anonymous New York Times op-ed in 2018 that was sharply critical of Trump. The person writing the essay described themselves as part of a secret “resistance” to counter Trump’s “misguided impulses,” and its publication touched off a leak investigation in Trump’s first White House.
Taylor later published a book under the pen name “Anonymous” and publicly revealed his identity days before the 2020 election.
Trump said Wednesday that Taylor was “like a traitor” and that his writings about “confidential” meetings were “like spying.”
“I think he’s guilty of treason,” he said.
Taylor responded by saying Trump had proved his point.
“Dissent isn’t unlawful. It certainly isn’t treasonous. America is headed down a dark path,” he wrote on X.

Trump named Krebs the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency but became angered with him after he declared the 2020 election that Trump lost to be secure and the ballot counts to be accurate.
Krebs did not respond to a message seeking comment Wednesday.
Trump has falsely claimed he was cheated out of reelection in 2020 by widespread fraud, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Recounts, reviews and audits in the battleground states where he disputed his loss all affirmed Biden’s victory. Judges, including some he appointed, rejected dozens of his legal challenges.
“It’s bizarre to see a president investigate his own administration and his own appointee,” said David Becker, a former Justice Department lawyer and coauthor of “The Big Truth,” a book about Trump’s 2020 election lies.
Becker noted that Krebs issued his reassurances about the security of the upcoming election for months during 2020 without pushback from the then-president, with Trump only souring on him after the votes were counted.
“The reason he can sit in the White House today and govern from that position is because our election system is secure and has accurately determined who has won the presidency,” Becker said.
Susman Godfrey, the firm Trump targeted in an order Wednesday, represented Dominion Voting Systems in a lawsuit that accused Fox News of falsely claiming that the voting company had rigged the 2020 presidential election. Fox News ultimately agreed to pay nearly $800 million to avert a trial.
The order bars the firm from using government resources or buildings, according to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.
Trump has issued a series of orders meant to punish firms, including by ordering the suspension of lawyers’ security clearances and revoking federal contracts. He’s succeeded in extracting concessions from some who have settled, but others have challenged the orders in court.