Federal judges across the nation have been working overtime since January 20. Their mission? Blocking President Donald Trump’s executive orders at every turn.

The resistance to Trump’s second term has been swift and coordinated. While protests have faded, a new strategy has emerged behind the scenes.

Liberal activists have found willing allies in courtrooms across America. These black-robed resisters have issued injunction after injunction—and honestly, it’s getting ridiculous.

Enter Republican Congressman Darrell Issa with a bold solution. The California representative has introduced legislation aimed at stopping what he calls “judicial tyranny” from undermining the will of American voters.

Judges Overstepping Constitutional Boundaries

Since President Trump’s inauguration, an unprecedented legal assault has targeted his administration. Indeed, more than 50 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s executive orders, proclamations, and memoranda.

These cases aren’t randomly distributed across federal courts. Instead, they’re strategically filed in districts with Democrat-appointed judges known for liberal rulings.

The tactic is called “judge shopping.” It involves filing cases in jurisdictions where activists can count on favorable treatment. And isn’t it curious how these cases always seem to land in the same handful of districts? A single district judge can then issue a nationwide injunction, effectively nullifying presidential actions across all 50 states.

“The founders could never have envisioned judges and part of the legislative branch teaming up to tie down the executive and disempower the people,” Issa told reporters.

This coordinated effort amounts to nothing less than “judicial tyranny” and a “weaponization of courts.”

The numbers are staggering. In just the first two weeks of February, district court judges issued at least 12 injunctions against the Trump administration. Many came without citing proper legal grounds—just the kind of judicial activism that makes a mockery of our constitutional system.

No Rogue Rulings Act: Restoring Balance

Issa’s legislation, known as the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), would fundamentally change how federal courts can issue injunctions.

“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 legislation states.

In plain English, the bill would prevent federal judges from issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions. Instead, any court order would apply only to the specific parties involved in the case.

This reform would restore the traditional scope of judicial power. No longer could a single judge in a remote district effectively veto presidential actions affecting the entire country.

Issa’s office expressed optimism about the bill’s prospects. His office said in a statement that they believe it has “maximum momentum” and will pass with Republican support before reaching President Trump’s desk.

Trump Administration Fights Back

The White House hasn’t remained silent about this judicial overreach. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the issue directly last week.

“Many outlets in this room have been fear mongering the American people into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place here at the White House,” Leavitt said during a press briefing. “I’ve been hearing those words a lot lately, but in fact, the real constitutional crisis is taking place within our judicial branch.”

“We believe these judges are acting as judicial activists rather than honest arbiters of the law and they have issued at least 12 injunctions against this administration in the past 14 days, often without citing any evidence or grounds for their lawsuits,” she continued.

The administration sees these injunctions as part of a “larger concerted effort by Democrat activists” and a continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump.

This pattern raises serious constitutional concerns. When unelected judges can single-handedly block the agenda of a duly elected president, the separation of powers becomes dangerously unbalanced.

The Founding Fathers established three co-equal branches of government. They never intended for the judiciary to have veto power over legitimate executive actions.

America’s constitutional system depends on each branch respecting the others’ proper authority. I’ve watched this judicial overreach accelerate for years, and it’s never been more blatant than now. When judges overstep their bounds to advance political agendas, they undermine the very foundation of our republic.

Issa’s legislation represents a necessary correction to judicial overreach. By limiting injunctions to parties directly involved in cases, NORRA would restore the proper relationship between the branches of government.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. President Trump was elected with a clear mandate to implement his America First agenda. When activist judges block his executive orders without proper legal basis, they’re not just opposing Trump – they’re opposing the will of the American people.

Every day these injunctions remain in place is another day the administration can’t move forward with the policies voters supported in November. And let’s be clear: that’s exactly what the left is counting on.

Key Takeaways:

• Liberal judges are weaponizing nationwide injunctions to obstruct Trump’s America First agenda.
• Rep. Issa’s No Rogue Rulings Act would restore proper constitutional limits on judicial power.
• The White House correctly identifies judicial activism as the “real constitutional crisis.”
• These injunctions directly undermine the will of voters who elected Trump in 2024.

Sources: Fox News