Jim Jordan, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and Republican Representative from Ohio, has advocated for restrictions on federal district judges to prevent them from issuing nationwide injunctions.
During an appearance on Newsmax’s “Rob Schmitt Tonight” on Monday, he expressed concern over the actions of federal district judges that have hindered President Donald Trump’s administration from implementing its policies. He noted that the House has passed legislation aimed at curbing their authority, although the Senate has yet to take action.
“We have enacted legislation stating that when a federal district judge issues an injunction, it should not have nationwide applicability; rather, it should be limited to the parties involved in that case within the relevant jurisdiction,” the representative stated.
On April 9, the House approved the ‘No Rogue Judges Act’ with a vote of 219-213. Should the Senate adopt this legislation and it be signed by President Trump, it would restrict district judges from issuing injunctions in favor of nonparties, except under certain circumstances.
‘This is about fundamental fairness,’ he stated. Jordan noted that Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court has also commented on this matter and suggested utilizing the appellate courts.
Justice Roberts issued a statement approximately a month ago regarding the appropriate course of action for those dissatisfied with a district judge’s ruling, suggesting the use of appellate courts. While I understand his perspective, I believe his statement highlights the increased attention on this matter.
The representative expressed his belief that several of these cases are likely to reach the Supreme Court in a relatively short period. He remains optimistic that the legislation approved by the House will also be successful in the Senate, thereby reducing some of the authority currently held by district court judges.
He stated, ‘We believe there is a possibility that this bill could pass through the Senate and be signed by President Trump, thereby limiting some of the powers that district judges presently possess.’
Furthermore, the House Judiciary Committee’s portion of a significant spending bill contains a provision that critics claim may significantly limit judges’ capacity to hold U.S. government officials in contempt of court, effectively granting the Trump administration the ability to ignore certain court orders.
The provision referred to as Section 70303 is found in the concluding paragraph of the 116-page legislative document that was sanctioned by the committee last week during the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution process, as reported by Roll Call.
This language prohibits courts from utilizing federal funds to enforce contempt citations against government officials who do not adhere to court orders, unless plaintiffs provide a monetary bond in line with civil procedure regulations—a stipulation that legal experts indicate is infrequently enforced in cases contesting federal policy.
A staff member from the House Judiciary Committee stated that the purpose of the provision is essentially to prevent baseless lawsuits. Democrats contend that this provision would greatly weaken judicial authority, particularly given the Trump administration’s evident antagonism towards judges who issue decisions contrary to its policy goals.
At least two federal judges—Judge James E. Boasberg from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Judge Paula Xinis from the U.S. District Court of Maryland—have suggested they might hold Trump administration officials in contempt in cases related to immigration.
However, Republicans argue that these two judges, along with several others appointed by Democratic presidents, have frequently exceeded their authority with decisions that unjustly and unconstitutionally restrict President Trump’s ability to manage the Executive Branch. Consequently, some of these judges, including Judge Boasberg, have faced calls for impeachment from the president and his supporters.
A Republican lawmaker from the House has filed articles of impeachment against him following his obstruction of the Trump administration’s deportation flights carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, as reported by Fox News in March.
“In recent weeks, we have witnessed numerous activist judges attempting to hinder the president from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by voters, as well as his democratic and constitutional duty to ensure the safety of the American populace,” stated Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, in an interview with Fox News Digital. “This instance exemplifies yet another case of a judge exceeding his…authority.”
