House tries to limit overreach by activist federal district judges: 'We're shutting down the judicial coup'



The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 passed the U.S. House in a 219-213 vote along party lines on Wednesday.

The bill would amend chapter 85, title 8 of the U.S. Code to prohibit a U.S. district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties of the particular case before the court.

Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican who introduced the legislation in February, noted that the Trump-endorsed bill "would impose important limits on nationwide injunctions, which activist Federal courts are weaponizing in an attempt to undermine President Trump's legitimate powers under Article II of the Constitution."

While the legislation will likely fail in the U.S. Senate, where a handful of Democrats would have to come on board in order to reach the 60-vote threshold, the passage of the bill in Congress nevertheless signals mounting frustration with judicial overreach, particularly by Democrat-appointed district judges such as:

  • Ana Reyes, a Biden-appointed foreign-born lesbian judge who worked as a lawyer to fight the first Trump administration's immigration policy and issued a nationwide injunction last month blocking the implementation of the second Trump administration's ban on transvestites in the military;
  • James Boasberg, an Obama judge who temporarily blocked summary deportations of apparent Tren de Aragua terrorists by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act;
  • Leo Sorokin, an Obama judge who blocked the Trump administration's enactment of the president's birthright citizenship order;
  • Brendan Hurson, a Biden judge who issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Trump's executive orders targeting federal funding for the promotion of gender ideology; and
  • Loren AliKhan, a radical Biden judge who temporarily blocked Trump's federal spending freeze.

The Congressional Research Service indicated in a March 28 report that the "Department of Justice had identified 12 nationwide injunctions issued during the presidency of George W. Bush, 19 issued during Barack Obama's presidency, and 55 such injunctions issued during the first Trump administration" as of February 2020.

'Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be.'

The CRS said there had already been at least 17 cases of national injunctions during the second Trump administration between Jan. 20 and March 27.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, is among the louder critics of this apparent effort by Democrat-appointed judges to prevent the execution of the president's agenda. He asked in the wake of one district judge's injunction, "Is there no end to this madness?"

"Currently, district court judges have assumed the mantle of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security and Commander-in-Chief," Miller wrote last month. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing and national security policies of the Administration. Each day the nation arises to see what the craziest unelected local federal judge has decided the policies of the government of the United States shall be. It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness."

'It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.'

The House Judiciary GOP noted that the No Rogue Rulings Act "limits activist judges' power and ensures policy decisions stay with elected officials, not unelected judges."

"No more district court activist judges silencing millions and hijacking the President's constitutional powers," wrote Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas). "We're shutting down the judicial coup."

While Democrats uniformly voted against the bill in the House and may do so again in the Senate, Issa made clear that activist judges and judicial overreach could be a problem for everyone eventually.

"In recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds," Issa said on the House floor Tuesday, reported Politico. "This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan."

It appears Democrats are thinking short-term, content to let judges set federal policy.

"Here's a message: if you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable."

"When a ruling goes against the Administration, injunctions work as a check and balance against an administration bent on bullying the bench to its will," said Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey (D). "This isn’t baseball; it can be a matter of life and liberty versus incarceration and impoverishment and should be a matter for serious and thoughtful consideration."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judicial impeachment is a remedy — not a rebellion



Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement last week declaring that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” His remarks come amid renewed debate over the scope of judicial accountability, as some conservatives, including President Trump, have called for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg over his handling of cases related to deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Roberts’ assertion, while reflective of modern norms, oversimplifies history. The reality is more complicated: Judicial impeachment has, at times, been driven by judicial decisions and the conduct surrounding them. While impeachment should not be a routine mechanism for challenging case outcomes, history shows it has been used when a judge’s rulings indicate persistent bias, a disregard for legal constraints, or an abuse of judicial authority.

If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

The clearest rebuttal to Roberts’ statement is the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. Chase, a staunch Federalist, was accused of allowing his political views to shape his rulings, particularly in cases related to the Sedition Act. The House of Representatives impeached him for what was effectively a judicial philosophy that his opponents found intolerable.

The Senate ultimately acquitted Chase, but the very fact that he was impeached — explicitly for his conduct on the bench — undermines the claim that judicial decisions have never been a basis for impeachment.

Chase’s case is not an outlier. In 1803, Judge John Pickering was impeached and removed, partially for erratic behavior but also for making decisions Congress viewed as improper and politically motivated. Judge West Humphreys, a Confederate sympathizer, was removed in 1862 in part because his rulings reflected active opposition to federal law. These cases show that, historically, judicial decisions and their consequences have been central to impeachment discussions.

The constitutional framework

Roberts’ statement implies a rigid wall between impeachment and judicial decision-making, but the Constitution draws no such line.

Article III, Section 1 provides that judges hold office “during good Behaviour,” a standard distinct from the more lenient protections given to elected officials. Article II, Section 4 allows impeachment for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That last phrase, historically interpreted to include abuses of power, opens the door to judicial decisions being relevant — not as mere policy disagreements, but as evidence of a judge’s failure to uphold his duties impartially.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 81 acknowledged that judicial misconduct, including decisions reflecting personal bias or disregard for the law, could be grounds for impeachment. The notion that impeachment exists only for personal corruption, rather than judicial overreach or defiance of legal norms, is a modern interpretation rather than an ironclad constitutional principle.

When does a ruling become impeachable?

The key distinction between a bad decision and an impeachable ruling is that the latter falls into a pattern of rulings that indicate a judge is abandoning his role as a neutral arbiter. A single controversial opinion does not justify impeachment, but if a judge repeatedly defies precedent, injects personal ideology into his decisions, or rules in ways that ignore constitutional limits, impeachment could be an appropriate remedy.

Consider the executive branch: A president is not impeached simply for enacting an unpopular policy, but if he abuses his authority, Congress has the power to remove him. The same reasoning applies to the judiciary. If a judge consistently rules in a manner that defies constitutional limits, impeachment is not a rejection of judicial independence — it is a safeguard against judicial tyranny.

A guardrail, not a weapon

None of this is to say that impeachment should be a routine check on judicial power. Judicial independence requires that courts be protected from political retaliation.

But the absolutist claim that impeachment is never an appropriate response to judicial decisions erases historical precedent and ignores the Constitution’s broader framework. Impeachment is not a tool for re-litigating every case, but neither is it an untouchable relic of the past.

Whether or not Congress agrees with Trump that Judge Boasberg should be impeached, it is essential that both judges and lawmakers recognize impeachment as a legitimate constitutional mechanism when a judge is no longer upholding his duty. The debate should not be about whether judicial decisions can ever warrant impeachment — they have before, and they will again — but about where the line is drawn between bad rulings and a true abandonment of judicial responsibility.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Destroy The Judicial Branch

Americans intuitively understand that the judiciary’s primary role is to protect the rights of American citizens, not those of bureaucracies.

Obama judges say suspected terrorists must be allowed to fight Alien Enemies Act deportations



An Obama judge doubled down Monday on his ruling preventing President Donald Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected terrorists who have stolen into the homeland.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — who critics claim is not just overstepping his bounds but "usurping the power of the president" — stated in his 37-page opinion that suspected members of the Tren de Aragua terrorist organization have a right to individualized hearings before they may be deported.

Later Monday, another Obama judge — this time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — heard the government's arguments for lifting Boasberg's order. U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett echoed her fellow traveler, claiming that the suspected terrorists dwelling in the country illegally who had been targeted for deportation were not given the due process supposedly owed them and that "Nazis got better treatment."

Background

Weeks after the State Department designated Tren de Aragua a terrorist group, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, proclaiming that all Venezuelan citizens "14 years of age or older who are members of TDA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."

'The judge's order was patently unlawful.'

A pair of leftist activist groups immediately filed a lawsuit on behalf of several illegal aliens in an effort to prevent Trump from using the law, which was passed by the generation that drafted the Constitution.

Boasberg granted the leftist groups their temporary restraining order, thereby preventing the Trump administration from sending more suspected terrorists packing — besides, of course, the hundreds of illegal aliens the administration loaded into planes destined for El Salvador and Honduras hours earlier.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, stated, "The judge's order was patently unlawful. Beyond unlawful, it was an outrageous assault on the Constitution, an outrageous assault on the sovereignty of the nation and on democracy itself."

Miller later told CNN that Trump's authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States with the aid of the Alien Enemies Act "is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, to enjoin, to restrict, or to restrain in any way."

"There's not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review," added Miller.

Trump noted on Truth Social, "If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!"

Tren de Aragua's judicial safety net

Boasberg suggested that the language of the Alien Enemies Act — particularly the terms "nation," "government," "invasion," and "predatory incursion" — was open for his interpretation and insinuated that a court could potentially be "empowered to decide if the characteristics of Tren de Aragua qualify it as a 'nation' or 'government,' or if its conducts constitutes a 'perpetrated, attempted, or threatened' 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion.'"

'Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings.'

Despite his apparent interest in tailoring the definitions of key terms to suit leftist activists and illegal aliens, Boasberg indicated that such a provocative course of action was likely unnecessary as the plaintiffs "have established a likelihood of succeeding on a more discrete claim that justifies retaining the TROs."

The Obama judge claimed that even if Trump's invocation of the act is valid, suspected enemies in the country illegally are still to be afforded the chance to contest their deportation or voluntarily self-deport.

"Before they may be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine whether the Act applies to them at all," wrote Boasberg. "The awesome power granted by the Act may be brought to bear only on those who are, in fact, 'alien enemies.' And the Supreme Court and this Circuit have long maintained that federal courts are equipped to adjudicate that question when individuals threatened with detention and removal challenge their designation as such."

The judge stressed that the illegal aliens targeted by the act "must be given the opportunity, if they so choose, to contest that they are 'Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of [Tren de Aragua], are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States."

Different Obama judge, same story

The Trump administration has appealed Boasberg's hearing and argued its case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Monday. Based on their reception by an Obama-appointed judge on the panel, the Alien Enemies Act may not ultimately be a reliable arrow in the administration's quiver when it comes to dispatching with illegally imported terrorists.

Judge Patricia Millett complained that the hundreds of criminal noncitizens whom Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed were flown to El Salvador and Honduras on March 15 were not given notice or provided an opportunity to contest their ouster, reported ABC News.

"There's no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. They [sic] people weren't given notice," said Millett. "They weren't told where they were going. They were given those people on those planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA."

'We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy.'

According to Millett, "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemy Act," referencing previously identified enemy aliens' ability to challenge their removal from the country during World War II.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign reportedly suggested Millett was wrong about her Nazi comparison, noting that some of the suspected terrorists were able to file habeas petitions.

Whereas Boasberg repeatedly cast doubt on the validity of the law, Millett was at least willing to acknowledge the law was constitutional.

Millett's responses were tempered by another judge on the panel, Trump-appointee Justin Walker, who appeared wise to the plaintiffs' game. Walker reportedly questioned why the activist groups decided to bring their case in Washington, D.C., rather than in Texas, where the deportees were being detained.

Of limits and ousters

Republican Rep. Brandon Gill (Texas), among those frustrated with judicial overreach and Democrat-appointed judges' apparent efforts to thwart the will of the democratically elected president, has filed a resolution to impeach Boasberg — a largely symbolic gesture granted it will reportedly require 14 Senate Democrats to convict.

Gill, who deemed Boasberg's latest ruling a "judicial insurrection," told Fox Business, "I hope that the Supreme Court steps in and expedites this appeals process, but absent that, I think Congress needs to jump in here. We cannot allow rogue, activist judges to conduct our foreign policy or to usurp the president's authority."

A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports found that voters favor impeaching Boasberg by a 2-to-1 margin — something Trump has expressed support for — and that voters majoritively support Trump's deportation of Venezuelan terrorists.

Critics of judicial overreach might ultimately have better luck reining in activist judges with legislation.

On Monday, California Rep. Darrell Issa (R) introduced a bill titled the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would prohibit U.S. district courts from issuing 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."

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan indicated that his committee will also hold hearings on efforts by Democrat-appointed judges to undermine the Trump administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Third Of All DC District Judges Were Not Born In United States

Of all the judges in the U.S. all five foreign-born judges of the D.C. court managed to get their fingerprints on controversial Trump cases.

Exclusive: Watchdog Group Files Complaint Against Judge For Demanding Gender Quotas Among Litigators

The Article III Project filed a complaint of misconduct against a judge in Florida for demanding sex be criteria for legal representation.

Besides Bludgeoning The Constitution, The Judges Stopping DOGE Are Boosting Inflation

President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency is doing the inflation reduction Congress has refused to tackle for decades.

Timeline: Federal Judge Didn’t Even Read Final Complaint Before Enjoining Trump

At the very least, Judge Paul Engelmayer’s decision should bring on a congressional impeachment inquiry.

How The Media Learned To Start Worrying And Fear The ‘Constitutional Crisis’

Democrat-appointed and activist judges are doing what they were always going to do if Donald Trump won the election, which is tie up and stall as much of his agenda as possible by court order. That’s all fine and good by the news media because they also hate Trump. But what they didn’t anticipate was […]

Trump, Vance challenge limits of judicial authority, sparking separation-of-powers debate



President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance seem to be gearing up for a battle about the separation of powers after weighing in on whether the federal judiciary should be able to curtail executive authority.

Early Saturday morning, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a ruling that temporarily blocks Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency from gaining access to the payment system of the Treasury Department, which is under the purview of the executive branch. The judge also ordered anyone outside the Treasury Department who has already gained access to the system to destroy all downloaded information.

Musk and DOGE have attempted to audit the agency to uncover possible fraud, waste, and other inefficiencies.

Engelmayer's ruling is set to expire on Friday, when a hearing will be held before a federal judge in New York, who will consider the issue on a more permanent basis. The case was brought by 19 state attorneys general — all Democrats — who argued that Musk and DOGE should not have access to sensitive data within the payment system.

Engelmayer agreed. "The Court’s firm assessment is that, for the reasons stated by the States, they will face irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief," he wrote.

"That is both because of the risk that the new policy presents of the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking."

'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'

Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller countered on Fox News that hindering executive control over executive agencies has allowed the deep state to flourish with no accountability:

What we continue to see here is the idea that rogue bureaucrats who are elected by no one, who answer to no one, who have lifetime tenure jobs, who we would be told can never be fired, which, of course, is not true, that the power has been cemented and accumulated for years, whether it be with the Treasury bureaucrats or the FBI bureaucrats or the CIA bureaucrats or the USAID bureaucrats, with this unelected shadow force that is running our government and running our country.

Federal judges routinely blocked elements of Trump's agenda during his first term. From the travel ban to pushing back against sanctuary cities to border wall funding, federal judges, often at the district level, stymied the efforts of the president of the United States to fulfill his campaign promises.

On his way to the Super Bowl on Sunday, Trump suggested federal judges should not have the authority to block a democratically elected POTUS. "No judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision," he told reporters aboard Air Force One.

"We’re very disappointed with the judges that would make such a ruling, but we have a long way to go."

Vance also weighed in on the limits of judicial oversight on Sunday, likely in response to Engelmayer's ruling. Vance claimed that federal judges should not have the ability to prevent the president from exercising "legitimate" control over executive agencies.

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," he wrote.

— (@)

Vance also retweeted Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule, who likewise argued that such judicial blocks ran afoul of the established separation of powers: "Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the separation of powers."

Republicans in Congress have also stood behind President Trump, defending executive authority in the face of apparent judicial overreach. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) called Engelmayer's decision "outrageous," claiming it was not based on legal precedent and yet would still have the effect of impeding the work of the secretary of the treasury.

Though the Constitution empowers a president to nominate members of his Cabinet, those nominees must first be approved by the Senate before they can take office. So judicial interference in the actions of a president's Cabinet has separation-of-powers implications regarding the legislative branch as well.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) indicated that a showdown about the reach of judicial authority was imminent. "I assume we will argue this out in court, like the other 17 or 18 decisions we have seen in the last several days. That all is going to get argued out in court. And, frankly, we knew the left, we knew the Democrats were going to do this," he said Sunday on CNN.

X has also been flooded with recollections of President Andrew Jackson, a proto Democrat who famously engaged in a standoff with the federal judiciary. After the Supreme Court ruled on a case related to Native American sovereignty rights in 1832, Jackson allegedly quipped, "The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it."

With Jackson's quote as a backdrop, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) seemingly warned Vance not to ignore the courts, even as he stopped short of claiming that doing so would be illegal.

"JD, we both went to law school. But we don’t have to be lawyers to know that ignoring court decisions we don’t like puts us on a dangerous path to lawlessness. We just have to swear an oath [to] the constitution. And mean it," he said.

The Democratic Biden-Harris administration infamously ignored SCOTUS' rulings regarding student loan forgiveness.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!