The House on Wednesday passed a bill restricting district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in a move that would vastly diminish the ability of courts to block President Trump\u2019s policies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dubbed the No Rogue Rulings Act, the legislation from Rep. Darrell Issa\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-Calif.) would limit judges to providing relief only to parties directly involved in the suit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The bill passed in an 219-213 vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It would bar district court judges<\/u><\/a> from issuing nationwide injunctions, even when the matter has an impact across the country \u2014 undercutting numerous lawsuits challenging Trump\u2019s directives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSince President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponize nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives,\u201d Issa said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at the worst.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n To Democrats, however, a recent string of Trump losses in court reflects not rogue judges but rather the lawlessness of his actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMy colleagues on the other side of the aisle want you to believe that somehow these nationwide injunctions being issued by courts across the country against Donald Trump\u2019s illegal and unconstitutional actions are unfair,\u201d Rep. Pramila Jayapal\u2002<\/u><\/a>(D-Wash.) said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHere\u2019s the message: If you don\u2019t like the injunctions, don\u2019t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That simple.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Both chambers have introduced bills to curb nationwide injunctions, but Republicans picked up the mantle<\/u><\/a> this year after U.S. District Court James Boasberg temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump has called for the judge\u2019s impeachment while other GOP voices have complained about the ability of one judge to hamstring a White House policy from being implemented across the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But Democrats argue the injunctions properly protect from harm those across the country even if they are not directly involved in the suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many have cited Trump\u2019s order attempting to block birthright citizenship for those not born to citizen parents. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties struck down the order, finding it violated the constitution\u2019s guarantee of citizenship for all born in the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Democrats argue it makes no sense that the parents of each child would need to sue individually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNationwide 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,\u201d Jayapal said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Judges have increasingly issued nationwide injunctions over the last 25 years, a trend accompanied by growing scrutiny of their legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n