WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump ramps up attacks on the judiciary, the Republican-led House voted Wednesday to limit district court judges’ ability to issue the nationwide injunctions that have hampered some of his executive actions.
The vote was 219-213, with just one Republican, Mike Turner of Ohio, joining all Democrats in opposing it. The bill now heads to the Senate, where it would almost certainly be blocked by a Democratic filibuster if it were brought to the floor.
Trump and many of his allies on the far right had been pushing House Republicans to take a more extreme step and attempt to impeach judges that stood in his way.
The “No Rogue Rulings Act,” authored by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., doesn’t go that far, but it allows House Republicans to voice their support for Trump on the issue while avoiding politically perilous impeachment votes that would be all but doomed to fail.
Follow live politics coverage here
In a brief interview, Issa argued that both parties would benefit from the legislation. He said that during President Joe Biden’s administration, Democrats howled when conservative judges issued nationwide injunctions against his executive actions.
“This is a growing problem that has vexed both Republican and Democrat presidents,” Issa, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the former chairman of the Oversight Committee, said before the vote. Biden, “to the very end, was trying to get this process of activist judges exceeding their jurisdiction rolled back.”
This bill, Issa said, “limits judges to the original intent, which will allow them to make decisions but only as to the plaintiffs.”
Trump and his allies have grown frustrated with lower-court judges’ issuing injunctions blocking Trump’s actions on deportations of undocumented immigrants, sweeping cuts and mass firings at federal agencies, ending birthright citizenship and other matters.
Much of Republicans’ criticism has centered on U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who halted Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants alleged to be Tren de Aragua gang members.
After that decision, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, a Trump ally, introduced a resolution to impeach Boasberg, who is based in Washington, D.C. Other judges who have ruled against Trump also have faced impeachment threats, including U.S. District Judges Paul A. Engelmayer and John Bates.
But GOP leaders have acknowledged such impeachment resolutions wouldn’t have enough support to pass out of the House, where Republicans hold a narrow 220-213 majority.
On top of that, 67 votes would be needed for convictions in the Senate, where Republicans have a 53-47 majority.
In some high-profile cases, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has been ruling in Trump’s favor. On Monday, it tossed out Boasberg’s decision blocking the removal of the alleged gang members to El Salvador.
A day later, the Supreme Court halted a ruling by U.S. District Judge William Alsup of California requiring some federal agencies to reinstate roughly 16,000 workers the Trump administration had tried to fire.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said his party in the past has tried to block “judicial forum shopping,” in which plaintiffs try to pick courts where they have higher chances of winning.
“But a nationwide injunction is a necessary part of the judicial tool kit,” said Raskin, a former constitutional law professor. “Why should every person affected [by an issue] have to go to court? Why should millions of people have to create their own case?”
“Why should Brown vs. Board of Education have applied to just Linda Brown as opposed to everybody affected?” he added.
