Forum

Congress votes to stop the judicial madness by reinstalling constitutional accountability, and radical judges are as mad as a cat in a bathtub! … And it’s about time.

I am a retired attorney, and one of the reasons I refused to practice law in California is just for this reason. How many times have I heard “Let the law be damned; I’m going to rule my way” from the Black robes running our court systems? Now, finally, constitutional law and Black Letter Law are back where they belong, in the courtroom and from the bench!

It’s a wonderful day on the floor of Congress! In a bold legislative move that signals a dramatic shift in the fight for constitutional accountability, the House of Representatives has passed the No Rogue Rulings Act, a Trump-backed measure designed to purge the judiciary of activist overreach and restore the balance of powers long distorted by partisan rulings.

Led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the bill directly targets the widespread use of nationwide injunctions by federal district judges, an often-abused legal tool that has repeatedly stymied America-first reforms from President Donald J. Trump’s administration. The bill, which passed the House with a vote of 219 to 213 without a single Democrat vote, represents a significant milestone in the fight against what conservatives have labeled as "anti-American" and "anti-Constitutional" lawfare from the bench.

😁 The lawyers in black robes just got spanked! 😁

The No Rogue Rulings Act limits federal district court rulings strictly to the parties involved, ending their ability to impose sweeping, U.S.-wide decisions that obstruct executive policies before higher courts can weigh in. Critics have long pointed to these rulings as a judicial hijacking of the democratic process, with unelected judges undermining the will of over 77 million Trump voters and blocking vital reforms on immigration, DEI rollbacks, and executive authority.

“This bill is a constitutional correction,” said Rep. Issa. “Judges are appointed, not anointed, and it’s time they remember that.” Issa emphasized the need to reassert the judiciary’s proper role as interpreter, not creator, of law.

The bill comes amid growing frustration on the right with lower court judges, many of them Democrat-appointed, who have wielded their gavels as political weapons. GOP lawmakers argue these judges have functioned less like neutral arbiters and more like ideological lawyers in robes.

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) described the situation bluntly: “Many Democrat-appointed lower court judges have conducted themselves like activist liberal lawyers in robes while attempting to stop President Trump's nationwide reforms. The No Rogue Rulings Act limits this unchecked power."

Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) echoed that sentiment, stating, “There is no reason that activist judges whose authority does not extend nationally should be allowed to completely stop Trump’s agenda.”

The legislation also addresses "judge shopping," a practice where plaintiffs seek favorable venues to challenge policies—a tactic that has been disproportionately effective in halting Trump-era actions.

Even as the House GOP wrestled with how to best confront judicial activism ranging from calls for the impeachment of specific judges to broader legislative reform, the passage of the bill revealed a unified party in principle. Though some conservatives initially called for harsher measures, such as the impeachment of specific judges, Issa’s strategy proved more palatable to leadership and ultimately more effective.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) supported both approaches but noted the broader impact of Issa’s bill: “Nationwide injunctions by activist judges have stood in the way of the American people’s will and, in some cases, their safety, since the President was sworn into office. This bill stops individual judges’ political beliefs from preventing the wants and needs of our citizens from being implemented.”

While the bill’s passage in the House marks a major victory for Trump-aligned lawmakers, its future in the Democrat-controlled Senate remains uncertain. With a 60-vote threshold needed to advance, the measure will require at least some bipartisan support, though history suggests Democrats may be reluctant to curb judicial power they’ve wielded so effectively.

Still, some see hope in comments made by former Biden solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, who criticized the scope of district court powers during her tenure. “This should not be a partisan issue,” Rep. Issa said. “We're hoping some people look at it on its merits rather than its politics.”

Whether the bill becomes law or not, it is clear that the era of unaccountable judicial interference may be coming to an end. For millions of Americans who have watched courts stall the reforms they voted for, the passage of the No Rogue Rulings Act signals a powerful reassertion of democratic governance.

Rep. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., introduced an amendment to limit plaintiffs' capacity to "judge shop" by submitting cases in districts that are advantageous to them. “Many things get called commonsense around here, but this one genuinely is. He added, “The core idea of limiting the overuse of nationwide injunctions has seen bipartisan support. Democrats backed it before, Republicans support it now, and I’m hopeful it will gain support from both sides during the vote.”

Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said after the bill passed, “Many Democrat-appointed lower court judges have acted more like activist liberal attorneys in robes, trying to block President Trump’s nationwide reforms. The No Rogue Rulings Act puts a check on that kind of unchecked power.”

Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, echoed that sentiment: “Over 77 million Americans voted for President Trump’s pro-American policies and expect them to be carried out. Judges with limited jurisdiction shouldn’t be empowered to completely derail a national agenda.”

Despite earlier differences on how to best push back against what they’ve called “rogue” or “activist” judges, Republicans have largely united behind this approach.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., who supports both impeachment efforts and the bill, said in a recent intereview, “The judicial vendetta against President Trump’s agenda needs to be stopped. Nationwide injunctions from activist judges have not only defied the will of the people but, in some cases, endangered public safety since the day he took office.”

He said the bill “prevents individual judges from imposing their personal politics on the entire country, blocking what Americans want and need.”

The next step is for the Senate to pass it, but it needs 60 votes. The Republican Party holds a majority of only 53 seats. The Democratic Party holds 45 seats, while Independents who caucus with the Democrats hold 2 seats.

Final Word: Why would the Democrats vote against obeying the Constitution unless they have rigged the system? Then the No Rogue Rulings Act is doomed by the anti-constitutionalist and anti-Americans.