For the first time in many years, a real movement is emerging among Republican leaders to do something about the corrupt progressive judges trampling on the Constitution and the rule of law, ignoring existing laws and precedents. It’s all finally coming to a head with a handful of far left rogue judges issuing injunctions preventing President Donald Trump from doing his job, usurping the powers of the executive branch.
Since the average American—non—attorneys—aren’t experts on the law, judges have been able to slide for years, making up legal reasoning to pretend to justify their far-left activist agenda, legislating from the bench. We all know how they dismissed election corruption lawsuits with bogus excuses like standing, laches, and mootness. I covered their twisted reasoning in various recent cases here.
The problem has become so bad that The Babylon Bee satire site published an article titled “Trump Leaves Presidency To Become Even More Powerful District Court Judge.”
Impeaching judges is practically impossible, since it requires two-thirds of the U.S. Senate (only a simple majority in the U.S. House of Representatives). Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached, and merely eight of those were actually convicted and removed by the U.S Senate. Some members of Congress are filing Articles of Impeachment anyway.
One intriguing idea flouted by some members of Congress is to limit federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. California Rep. Darrell Issa sponsored the The No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley sponsored the Nationwide Injunction Abuse Prevent Act of 2025. Both would limit injunctions to that judge’s jurisdiction, not nationwide. Supported by House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Issa’s bill is expected to be brought up for a full House vote this week. Issa said, “You know, we don't need a Supreme Court if 700 judges can each do what the Supreme Court does."
Recommended
Others have talked about having appeals courts hear appeals from rogue judges immediately.
Another fascinating idea, suggested by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, would be for Congress to strip judges of jurisdiction over specific issues such as immigration and executive orders. Political commentator and Fox News host Mark Levin has cited historical precedent, such as President Thomas Jefferson’s repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801.
Congress is considering using its appropriations power to defund the lower courts. However, Berkeley constitutional law professor John Yoo argues that this would have limited impact and face constitutional challenges.
Democrats proposed their own legislation in 2023 to cut down on one particular abuse, judge shopping. U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and U.S. Representative Deborah Ross, D-N.C. co-sponsored the Fair Courts Act, which prohibits a district court from granting nationwide relief unless the request is heard by a panel of three judges, and requires random assignment of judges. Currently, many courts claim the assignments are random, but they’re really not, the presiding judge is usually in charge of divvying up cases, or has delegated that to the chief clerk. However, the bill doesn’t stop lawsuits from being filed in unlikely jurisdictions, so challenges could still be filed in California or Washington state, for example.
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio will be holding hearings in his House Judiciary Committee investigating the judges beginning Tuesday. The proceedings are named “Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Limits on the Federal Courts.” He has said all options will be examined.
While some like Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. claim rogue judges can be reined in by appellate judges, that overlooks the fact the left judge shops for judges in left-leaning circuits. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is notoriously on the left. Similarly, many of these lawsuits have been filed in California or Washington state, since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the most liberal appeals courts. The Supreme Court only has the bandwidth to take about 80 cases a year, so the vast majority of these cases will end at the appeals court level with bad decisions.
Trump is defying some of the judges’ orders. The Trump administration sent illegal immigrant gang members from Venezuela to El Salvador’s prison earlier this month despite U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s order prohibiting it. This will likely end up addressed by SCOTUS. Boesberg is being targeted by members of Congress with Articles of Impeachment, and pundit Laura Loomer has exposed Boasberg’s family ties to the gangs. His daughter Katharine Boasberg works for a 501c3 called Partners For Justice that gives criminal illegal immigrants and gang members legal advice. He should have recused himself from hearing the case for that reason. Trump, who has called along with Elon Musk to impeach Boasberg, is also filing emergency appeals directly with SCOTUS.
Even liberal SCOTUS Justice Elena Kagan has objected to the rogue judges’ overstepping their power by issuing nationwide injunctions. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley believes Congressional legislation to restrict the nationwide injunctions will be upheld by SCOTUS. I think that federal judges have overextended themselves,” he said during an interview on Fox News. “I think they have intruded into areas of Article II or presidential authority.”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member