Darrell Issa Proposes Legislation to Curb Nationwide Injunctions Against Presidents

FIRST ON FOX: In a bold move aimed at reshaping the judicial landscape, GOP Representative Darrell Issa has introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA). This legislation seeks to prevent federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that could interrupt or impede a president’s political agenda—a tactic Issa believes has been executed systematically since President Donald Trump took office.

Overview of the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA)

The No Rogue Rulings Act amends Chapter 85 of Title 28 of the United States Code by introducing a “Limitation on authority to provide injunctive relief.” Specifically, the bill stipulates, “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.”

The Context and Implications of the Legislation

Since President Trump’s inauguration, more than 50 lawsuits have been brought against his administration by various activist groups, local jurisdictions, and elected officials, particularly in response to his expansive use of executive orders. Fox News recently reported that over 60 executive orders, along with other proclamations and memoranda, have triggered a wave of legal challenges.

Issa’s proposed legislation intends to limit the application of nationwide injunctions, restricting judges from issuing rulings that affect parties not directly involved in the cases before them. The intent is to ensure that any injunction would only address the specific parties requesting relief, regardless of whether the injunction pertains to enforcement actions or broader policy changes.

Issa’s Critique of Judicial Practices

Issa expressed deep concerns about the current state of judicial conduct in the United States, stating, “The founders could never have envisioned judges and part of the legislative branch teaming up to tie down the executive and disempower the people.” He characterized the current climate of “judge-shopping” as akin to “judicial tyranny” and warned against what he sees as a “weaponization of courts” to thwart presidential powers.

Support and Momentum for Issa’s Bill

In discussions with Fox News Digital, Issa’s office conveyed optimism that the NO RRA legislation would garner sufficient support from Republican lawmakers and be signed into law by President Trump, asserting that the bill has “maximum momentum” within Congress.

A Response from the Trump Administration

As Issa’s bill gains traction, the Trump administration has publicly criticized the surge of judicial injunctions disrupting executive authority. During a recent press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the media’s claims of a constitutional crisis stemming from the administration, asserting, “The real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch.” She accused district court judges, particularly those in liberal jurisdictions, of overstepping their authority to block basic executive functions.

Concerns Over Judicial Activism

Leavitt characterized the actions of these judges as indicative of an “activist” judiciary, stating that at least 12 injunctions have been issued by various courts against the administration in just two weeks, often without proper legal grounds being cited. She described these developments as part of a “larger concerted effort” orchestrated by Democratic activists, aimed at undermining President Trump’s policies and initiatives.

Broader Political Implications

The introduction of the No Rogue Rulings Act highlights an escalating partisan conflict surrounding judicial power and the interpretation of executive authority. As litigation against the executive branch becomes increasingly commonplace, the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive is set to be a focal point for lawmakers and legal scholars alike. The effectiveness of Issa’s proposed legislation could significantly redefine the legal strategies utilized by both sides in the political arena, particularly in the context of presidential executive orders.

Conclusion

As the political landscape continues to evolve, the No Rogue Rulings Act represents a critical examination of judicial authority over executive actions. Whether this bill will successfully navigate the legislative process remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly sparks important conversations about the role of the judiciary in American governance and the ongoing struggles between branches of government.