Trump wants to rein in federal judges. One California Republican is already working on it

Los Angeles Times

24-03-2025

WASHINGTON — As court orders against his administration mount, President Trump has ramped up his attacks on federal judges in recent days, railing against their authority and calling for their impeachment.
In particular, the president seems to have zeroed in on the idea of limiting federal district judges' ability to issue injunctions that have national implications.
'Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!' Trump posted Thursday night on his social media platform. 'These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings.'
While Trump rages on social media — going as far as calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to limit district courts' ability to grant injunctions — one California Republican in Congress is working to rein in the judges who are checking Trump's powers.
Rep. Darrell Issa of Bonsall introduced the No Rogue Rulings Act, or NORRA, last month to limit federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, curtailing their ability to make decisions that affect people outside their district.
Issa's legislation has gained traction among several prominent Republicans — including the president, who is determined to advance his anti-immigration agenda despite setbacks in the courts.
'You can't stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench who has no idea what's going on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,' Trump said Friday from the Oval Office.
In Washington, where Republicans control the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Issa's bill reflects a broader push by Republicans to clamp down on the judiciary, which has proved to be the only arena where Trump is encountering consistent opposition.
Following Trump's lead, some Republicans are targeting judges they deem 'activists' for impeachment. Elon Musk, one of the president's closest advisors and the subject of several court cases himself, echoed those calls last week, posting on X, 'This is a judicial coup.'
In the myriad court cases Trump faces for his dozens of sweeping executive orders and actions since taking office in January, perhaps the most pointed rebuke came earlier this month, when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ordered the government to turn around planes carrying immigrants for deportation. The planes landed at their destination in El Salvador, and the judge has been tussling with the president's lawyers about whether they defied his order.
The episode escalated Democratic concerns that the Trump administration may refuse to follow a judge's orders, launching a 'constitutional crisis' and threatening American democracy. For Republicans, Boasberg's order became another notch in a long line of judicial attacks against Trump.
'The injunctions are nothing more than partisan judicial overreach, and have disrupted the president's ability to carry out his lawful constitutional duty,' Issa said when introducing NORRA in a House Judiciary Committee hearing. 'This has allowed activist judges to shape national policy across the entire country … something this Constitution never contemplated.'
Boasberg, the judge who tried to block the flights of Venezuelan immigrants that ultimately landed in a San Salvador prison, was appointed to the Superior Court by President George W. Bush and elevated to the federal bench by President Obama. Many other judges who have stymied Trump's efforts — such as the banning of transgender troops from the military or attempts to cripple the U.S. Agency For International Development — were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the power of district court judges to make rulings that are binding on a national level has vexed Democrats and Republicans for decades.
In recent years, federal district and appellate courtsissued injunctions limiting portions of former President Biden's attempts to forgive student debt and parts of former Obama's Affordable Care Act.
'This is actually a serious issue that has come up on a number of occasions on both sides of the aisle,' Levitt said. 'It's a little difficult to know how seriously to take this particular version because, depending on who tends to be in power at any given time, different members of Congress seem to really like or really hate these sorts of aggressive court action.'
When introducing NORRA to the Judiciary Committee, Issa brought a chart showing the number of injunctions presidents have faced in office. In his first term, Trump received 64, far above former Presidents Biden (14), Obama (12) or Bush (6). Trump already faces 12 injunctions in his second term, according to Issa's chart.
'The implication of this chart is that somehow the courts have done something wrong, rather than Donald Trump having done something wrong,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at the hearing. 'The reason there are 64 injunctions against him is because he is trampling the lawmaking and spending powers of the Congress of the United States.'
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Issa's bill was a 'terrible idea' that would sow chaos in the federal courts. In practice, Chemerinsky said, the measure probably would create conflicting rulings between districts, making Americans subject to different rules in different parts of the country on complex issues including birthright citizenship or a transgender soldier's right to be in the military.
'If the Northern District of California issues an order telling a Cabinet secretary not to do something, the Cabinet secretary will say they're not bound by that order outside the Northern District of California,' he said.
Chemerinsky said the bill is a hammer in search of a nail, as national injunctions issued by district courts already have a limited effect. Such issues are often quickly appealed, and if a federal appellate court reverses the lower court judge, a case could then make its way before the U.S. Supreme Court.
He did acknowledge, however, that the issuance of nationwide injunctions has become more prevalent as the nation's partisan divide grows sharper, with plaintiffs on both ends of the political spectrum 'judge shopping' for ideological allies on the bench.
'Conservatives in the Biden administration continually went to courts in Texas to get injunctions, and liberals have done that in the Trump administration,' he said.
Republican lawmakers eager to defend the president have leapt to support the legislation. It sailed out of the House Judiciary Committee, which Issa sits on, in early March and is expected to reach the House floor for a vote soon.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), another ardent Trump supporter in Congress, announced Thursday that he also would bring legislation in the Senate to limit nationwide injunctions.
'You can feel when momentum is coming for a bill you're working on,' said Jonathan Wilcox, Issa's spokesperson. 'When the White House is aligned, the Senate's involved, leadership's positive. You don't get that every day.'
Issa's legislation marks how Republicans have come to completely align themselves behind the president since he first took office in 2017. At the time, Issa, a conservative representing California's southwestern corner, broke with his party to join with Democrats in calling for an independent investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Issa faced a few tough challengers in elections since, but handily won the 48th Congressional District seat in November with 59% of the vote. He has since positioned himself as one of the president's staunchest allies in California. Earlier this month, Issa said he would nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.
Despite his support — and his chart — Issa insisted during the committee hearing that NORRA was not about Trump.
'We are not passing a law for the current occupant of the White House,' Issa said. 'We are passing a law that will improve the effectiveness of the executive branch, and the reasonable challenges to actions by an executive branch, now and for the rest of the many years of our great republic.'
Issa's bill also includes an amendment from Rep. Derek Schmidt, a Republican and former attorney general of Kansas, that would allow for a case brought by states and involving multiple districts to be reviewed by a three-judge panel, with the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Levitt questioned the practical ability of Issa's measure to cure Trump's frustrations with district judges' actions on his executive orders. The exception cited in Issa's bill refers to the Administrative Procedure Act, a 1946 law that gives federal courts oversight with respect to the actions of federal agencies, Levitt said.
When plaintiffs sue to block actions implemented by executive order, they're actually suing the agency tasked with carrying out the president's direction — agencies that judges could still enjoin under the Administrative Procedure Act, Levitt said.
In cases that have recently infuriated Trump — such as the judges' orders blocking his push to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members without due process, or to eliminate birthright citizenship — Levitt said Issa's bill would have no effect, since the defendants in those cases would be Cabinet-level agencies that are subject to the APA.
Although Levitt didn't think Issa's bill would achieve the weakening of judiciary power that Trump seems to desire, he did warn that Republicans are walking a path they could regret when they're the minority party again and in need of injunctive relief.
'Do you object in the same way to the super conservative rulings that affected the Biden administration in the same way that you are protesting here?' Levitt asked.
Chemerinsky said Issa's bill is more concerning at a time when the Trump administration seems set on weakening the powers of the legislative and judicial branches.
'You have a president who is simultaneously trying to define presidential powers more broadly than anyone has in U.S. history,' he said. 'This bill is trying to take away a check on that power in this crucial moment.'