M.D. Kittle writes for the Federalist about a plan on Capitol Hill to rein in federal trial judges.
In the opening three months of President Trump’s ambitious “flood the zone” second term, we have witnessed activist federal courts issue a tsunami of national injunctions against the executive branch. Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., recently described the third branch’s overzealous blocking of Trump’s executive orders as a “judicial coup d’etat.”
The Republican-controlled House is trying to check what members like Onder believe to be a constitutional crisis created by an overreaching judiciary. Earlier this month, the House on a party-line vote passed the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (NORRA) aimed at limiting the use of national injunctions. The bill, now before the Senate Judiciary Committee, basically bars U.S. district courts from issuing injunctive relief orders unless they apply to specific parties bringing a complaint.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the bill’s author, said activist federal judges on a daily basis are abusing their Article III powers, defying the Constitution and blocking Trump’s “executive authority to deport criminal illegal immigrants, reduce wasteful government spending, and strengthen our military.”
“Today, a majority of the House of Representatives declared that enough is enough,” Issa said in a press release following the vote.
Not a single Democrat voted for the bill.
“If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That is simple,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said in voting against the No Rogue Rulings Act.
The far-left congresswoman has an interesting take on “unconstitutional stuff.” She, of course, cheered on Biden’s frequent skirting of congressional authority and the Constitution.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who introduced the Republican-led Senate’s version of the bill seeking to restrain nationwide injunctions, recently noted that both sides of the aisle have had trouble with consistency on the judicial issue.
