House to vote on limiting district courts’ ability to issue injunctions

The House of Representatives plans to vote next week on a bill that would limit the ability of district courts to issue injunctions, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., has announced.

Lawmakers will decide whether to advance the No Rogue Rulings Act introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Some Republicans have described it as a way to stop judges from disrupting President Donald Trump’s agenda.

“NEWS ? Next week the House plans to vote on @repdarrellissa’s No Rogue Rulings Act to limit the judicial overreach of partisan federal judges issuing political nationwide injunctions to impede President Trump’s agenda the majority of American voters elected him to carry out,” Scalise posted on social media platform X on Monday.

The bill would amend federal law on district court jurisdiction to include the sentence: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court.”

Some Republicans have suggested judges issuing orders against the Trump administration’s actions have acted unlawfully. Democrats have disagreed, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., saying in a recent video message that courts must check the White House’s power.

“In our democracy, we have separate and co-equal branches of government. We don’t work for Donald Trump. We work for the American people,” Jeffries said. “It is the Congress’s responsibility and the court’s responsibility to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch.”

He also expressed opposition to impeaching judges, a move Trump and his allies have expressed support for. Jeffries’s sentiment was like that of Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court, who last week rejected the idea of removing judges.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in a statement.

Have questions, concerns or tips? Send them to Ray at [e-mail].