News Every Day | 31 March 2025, 04:20

(VIDEO) Rep. Darrell Issa Discusses No Rogue Rulings Act to Limit District Court Judges’ Power – House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Judge Brian Boasberg’s Deportation Block Tuesday

Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) No Rogue Rulings Act, which seeks to place restrictions on federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, is expected to receive a full House vote this week as the House Judiciary Committee also plans to hold a hearing on district court judges who are blocking the President’s agenda.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has scheduled a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet and Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.

The hearing on Tuesday, titled “Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Limits on the Federal Courts,” is set to examine rulings by District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is at the center of the White House’s battle to enforce the Alien Enemies Act and deport terrorist illegal aliens.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, President Trump went scorched earth on the judge after he sided with criminal gang members Friday and extended his temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Alien Enemies Act case until April 12. The TRO was set to expire on March 29.

The President also echoed calls for Boasberg’s security clearance to be pulled as a consequence for his lawless order, signaling that he may be inclined to do so.

Trump GOES OFF on Radical Judge Boasberg, Hints He May Revoke His Security Clearance!

Rep. Darrell Issa joined Fox News on Saturday to discuss his crucial legislation to limit the authority of District Court Judges like James Boasberg.

"H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, or NORRA, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), would prohibit United States district courts from issuing any orders providing for injunctive relief that are broader in scope than restricting the actions of a party before the court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief," reads the bill summary.

"The bill would allow a district court to issue a nationwide injunction in a case in which two separate states from two separate judicial circuits are parties--making clear the nationwide nature of the dispute. In such a case, the bill provides for the establishment of a panel of three randomly chosen judges to determine whether to issue a nationwide injunction. Such injunctions may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court."

Watch below:

Issa: Well, the bill is not a block. The bill simply restates the intent and the language that Congress used to create district court judges. District court judges are supposed to be limited to that which occurs in their district and has a nexus to their district. And many of these judges far exceed their authority, grab, if you will, a random plaintiff, and then make it a national injunction, and so we want to rein that in appropriately. You know, we have nine people on the Supreme Court, so that no one justice makes a decision. When one judge makes the decision and holds up the administration for weeks or months, they've really preempted the Supreme Court.

And so, that's really where we're coming down. Earlier it was said that we're divided. The GOP isn't divided on taking this step. There are those who have specific allegations about some judges and are talking impeachment, but that's a separate issue. It's a very difficult bar. It's hard to prove. And as Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General Yu said, it is not appropriate if we just simply disagree with somebody's mistaken, wrong or wrong minded decision. So we're going to do what we can do under congressional rules.

We're going to do it quickly, and I think we're going to do it right. I do want to opine quickly on President Trump is not exceeding his authority on this question of only citizens voting. The Congress has acted in the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and a number of other areas, and those have all been sustained by the High Court. Congress has a responsibility, or simply a right, to preempt the states when it's appropriate to maintain the common good. And that doesn't get in the way of the time, place, or manner, which is determined by the states.

We have a lot of authority to act when Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court doesn’t. What we're doing this coming week on the House floor is passing a major piece of legislation that defines what I believe the Supreme Court should have already decided, which is to rein in the excessive decisions by district courts. If they don't, we will. Additionally, while the President has his executive action, we intend on also using our power to define a lot of other things for the court, and one of them, quite frankly, is that these cases, in some cases, exceed the jurisdiction of the court, and we can rein that in. So, we'll work with the President and the administration to do that.