Staff Reports
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan is not sitting idly by while activist judges roll out nationwide injunctions like it’s an all-you-can-eat buffet of lawlessness. With President Trump now faced with a veritable obstacle course of federal judges blocking critical executive orders, particularly on matters like immigration, Jordan has unveiled an ambitious blueprint aimed squarely at reforming a judicial system that he insists has become overly politicized.
In a short span of President Trump’s second term, a staggering 15 judges have slapped him with nationwide injunctions. That’s right—one judge, possibly from a sleepy district court deep in the heart of Timbuktu, California, can issue rulings that disrupt the entire nation’s policy agenda. Such legal shenanigans have Republicans sounding the alarm, accusing these judges of trading in justice for political grandstanding. It raises the pressing question: are these judgments judicial misconduct or mere politically driven antics?
Jordan’s reform efforts boil down to three key actions aimed at wrestling the judiciary back under the legislative thumb. First off, he’s pushing for legislation that would restrict the ability of solo judges to issue nationwide injunctions—suggesting that if a judge in Maryland decides to block a policy, that ruling should only affect those directly involved in the case, rather than waking up the entire country. Second, he plans to employ Congress’s power over appropriations to place financial pressure on judges who don’t toe the constitutional line. Finally, Jordan intends to hold hearings to scrutinize the behavior of judges he believes are channeling their inner political activist instead of upholding the law.
The Judiciary Committee recently approved the “No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025,” aptly sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa. Under this legislation, federal judges will be stripped of the ability to hand out sweeping nationwide injunctions. Instead, in cases where multiple states contest a federal law, the matter would be handed over to a randomly selected three-judge panel. No more lone wolves wielding excessive power—this reform seeks to ensure that overreach is kept firmly at bay.
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan lays out sweeping agenda for judicial reform https://t.co/UMDoDEUxK6
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) March 27, 2025
Of course, action like this isn’t merely about restraining judges; it’s about correcting the imbalance created by an increasingly rogue judiciary. The many lawsuits lodged against Trump, often emerging from liberal strongholds like Maryland and D.C., have become a revolving door for injunctions that effectively freeze key presidential directives. One particularly controversial case involves a judge named James Boasberg, who has proceeded to block Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of a Venezuelan gang. The Trump administration argues that such judicial overreach infringes on its constitutional executive powers, but Boasberg seems to be enjoying the spotlight far too much for anyone’s comfort.
Notably, Jordan hasn’t hesitated to shine a light on Boasberg’s seemingly questionable past. The judge’s connection to the FISA court during the Trump-Russia investigation and attendance at anti-Trump events sets off a few alarm bells about potential bias. In light of these revelations, some Republicans are now pushing articles of impeachment against several judges—including Boasberg—for what they claim is a blatant abuse of power that undermines Trump’s constitutional prerogatives. It appears that the gloves are off, and Jordan is leading the charge to take back the judiciary from its increasingly political grip.
This push for reform demonstrates that the fight isn’t just at the ballot box—it’s also in the courtrooms where a few politically motivated judges are wielding more power than ever. Jordan’s agenda aims to restore order, accountability, and a sense of judicial humility—a welcome counter to the current trend of judicial activism. The stage is set for a battle that could reshape the relationships between branches of government and redefine the boundaries of judicial authority in America.
