Exclusive–Rep. Issa: Bill Limiting District Judges’ National Injunction Authority Is ‘a First Step’ in Reigning in ‘Rogue Actors’

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) told Sirius XM’s Breitbart News Saturday that his legislation, the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” would be a “first step” in reining in “rogue actors” by limiting federal district court judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions.

Issa’s appearance on the program comes as federal district judges, like Judge James Boasberg in Washington, DC, have ruled against key Trump executive orders with nationwide injunctions.

“It’s a first step, and I tell everyone, we’re going to be taking many steps to rein in these rogue actors,” Issa told Breitbart News Washington Bureau Chief Matthew Boyle. “This particular one limits their ability to do nationwide injunctions.”

The House is set to vote on the legislation next week.

Issa stressed that the district courts were not established by the Constitution, but by Congress to prevent the Supreme Court from being overloaded by cases, adding that district courts were meant to take plaintiffs in their districts.

“When Congress created–not the constitution–when Congress created the lower courts, they did so to help alleviate from the Supreme Court how many cases went to them,” he said. “But they did so–the word District Court has a meaning–they did so for them to take plaintiffs in their district, people and parties who have a Nexus, and make a decision for their district, with the clear understanding that after they made their decision, and somebody in another district made their decision, if there was some ambiguity, then the… appellate courts, and Supreme Court would step in.”

“Instead, what they’ve decided is, instead of nine men and women in Washington being the spokesperson, the final decision-maker for the country, that they were going to do it,” Issa added. “It’s outside their jurisdiction, and although it should have been reined in by the Justices of the Supreme Court, since they haven’t, we will, and we’ll continue to do so because it’s not just here, but a number of other activities that these judges are doing that have to be pushed back. And we have to do it, not based on one judge who we might be able to impeach, but rather on as many as 100 or 200 of these 700 judges that think that their mandate is as large as the Supreme Court’s.” 

LISTEN:

Thus far, Trump’s administration has been subjected to 15 nationwide injunctions, USA Today reported. Nationwide injunctions were also rampant during Trump’s first term, according to an April 2024 Harvard Law Review article. Of the at least 127 nationwide injunctions issued from 1963 through 2023, 64 came in the first Trump term.

Boyle noted that leftist groups will essentially “shop” for a specific court in hopes of getting a favorable judge and therefore a favorable ruling with a national injunction.

“I don’t think that’s the way our Founders intended the court system to work,” he told Issa.

“No,” Issa responded. “As a matter of fact, when our founders created in the Constitution the Supreme Court, they let Congress decide how many people would be on that court, and completely allowed us to decide if, in the future, there were going to be additional and lower courts. So although we often call them all Article III courts, the fact is: Only the Supreme Court is a constitutional court. All of the other courts are a creation of Congress, and so they’re really statutory courts and… should be limited to that.”

Boyle asked Issa for his thoughts on how the bill would play out in the Senate, which has its version of a similar bill, should it make its way out of the House. Republicans would need seven Democrats or independents who caucus with them at a minimum to help them reach a key 60-vote threshold to jump a procedural hurdle called “cloture” and allow a floor vote on the bill.

“What’s going to happen in the Senate, of course, is that they do have to put together a number of Democrats. But one of the things about this bill is it’s balanced. This bill would have the same effect if the next Obama, or Biden, or any other Democrat president came in and was doing their executive action,” he explained. “It would allow for a judge to make a decision based on a plaintiff in front of them, but not allow them to immediately stop the president nationally, unless there was, as in one case, for example, in the last administration, you know, 16 attorneys general who all filed. Well, that would be a multiple, and we plan for that. So this is balanced.”

“We think it is something that should have Democrats come in,” the congressman continued. “We don’t expect Democrat leadership to do it, but we do expect a number of the more thoughtful Democrats to go ‘This is long term good for the country,’ but that’s something that Senator Thune and others are going to have to wrestle with, because partisan politics often eliminates the support for good things.”

Issa noted that even in a hypothetical scenario in which the legislation does not make it out of Congress, Congressional Republicans’ focus on the matter could prod the Supreme Court to rein in district judges itself.

“Even if this were to hypothetically not get through the Senate or be delayed, the court could begin to take notice that if they don’t act, we will,” Issa explained. “And a lot of times, Chief Justice Roberts, on behalf of the court, takes notice of what we’re doing, as he did with some of the ethics questions and so on, and then does something to do it. So we’re hoping that we get a two-for, that this legislation causes them to look solidly at the fact that the court should have been slapping down these judges with quick actions and citing that they’ve exceeded their jurisdiction, and we’re hoping it’ll do that. But if they don’t, Chairman Jordan, the rest of us in support of our president, are going to make sure that we do.”

Issa also laid out some other actions worth considering after the No Rogue Rulings Act.

“One of them is a venue definition that would narrow the amount of times that these individuals can shop…You know right now, they’re getting in front of judges all over the country, as far away as Hawaii, on things that clearly occurred in Washington,” he said. “And so we believe that we can define that in a way in which those would be thrown out simply as not allowed to be brought in these diverse areas.”

“The next one is the speed with which the president gets appeal,” he continued. “You know, if you’re on death row, you get immediate access to a Supreme Court justice before they can pull the final button. We have a similar situation in which the urgency on which the President should be able to appeal directly to the court in the case of one of these should be based on, you know, the administration’s determination of need and damage.”

He emphasized that he is working with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) on “constitutionally appropriate” measures.