The House of Representatives is poised to vote Tuesday on a major Trump-backed piece of legislation aimed at limiting the ability of federal district court judges to block the president’s agenda nationwide. The legislation, called the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA), was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) earlier this year and has swiftly become a cornerstone of the House GOP’s push to rein in what they see as judicial overreach.

If passed, the bill would prohibit federal district court judges—more than 670 in total—from issuing national injunctions. Instead, any ruling would apply only to the specific plaintiffs in a case, stripping judges of their current ability to effectively halt entire federal policies across the country with a single ruling.

Issa said in a recent interview with Fox News Digital that the bill addresses an imbalance that has repeatedly undermined the executive branch’s ability to govern.

“The administration can win 15 times, and they lose once—they get an injunction. That’s not the way it’s supposed to be,” Issa said, referring to the more than 15 nationwide injunctions Trump has faced since returning to office.

The lawsuits have come from liberal activist groups, Democrat-controlled states, and federal employees aiming to derail the president’s sweeping efforts on everything from curbing birthright citizenship to dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) mandates across the federal government.

Backed by House leadership, the bill advanced through the House Rules Committee late Monday without a single Democratic vote. It’s expected to survive Tuesday’s procedural vote at around 1:30 p.m. ET, with a final vote on the bill scheduled for later in the day. If it passes, the bill will then head to the Democrat-controlled Senate, where it faces a tougher road. Senate passage would require at least 60 votes, meaning some Democrats would have to cross the aisle.

The White House and Trump-aligned lawmakers argue the legislation is long overdue, especially in light of recent court rulings stalling the administration’s most high-profile efforts. One example cited by House Republicans is the recent injunction blocking parts of the president’s executive order on revoking federal funding from sanctuary states that allow trans athletes to compete in girls’ sports.

Trump himself has fumed over activist judges since the early days of his first term, when district court rulings frequently delayed or halted his immigration policies. His team has made judicial reform a centerpiece of the broader effort to dismantle the administrative state.

But Issa was quick to point out that concern over judicial overreach isn’t limited to conservatives. Even President Biden’s former Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, raised red flags in a December 2024 filing with the Supreme Court. She argued that universal injunctions “exert substantial pressure on this court’s emergency docket, and they visit substantial disruption on the execution of the laws.”

Issa said such acknowledgments from across the aisle show the problem is systemic. “We could have called [Biden’s] former solicitor general and asked, ‘Have you changed your opinion in less than a year?’ Of course, the answer would be no,” he added.

Still, Democrats have so far been unwilling to lend their support. They argue the bill could hinder access to justice, particularly for vulnerable groups that rely on nationwide injunctions to challenge federal overreach.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), a staunch Trump ally, has endorsed the bill as part of a broader agenda to restore balance between the three branches of government. Since reclaiming the gavel, Johnson has worked closely with Trump and key allies like Issa to ensure the legislative arm can move quickly to counter executive resistance from the judiciary.

Passage of the bill in the House would mark a symbolic and procedural win for the Trump administration as it continues to implement aggressive reforms across the federal government. It would also mark a sharp departure from past norms, where national injunctions were frequently used to paralyze Republican presidents.

If NORRA becomes law, it would significantly reshape the legal landscape by neutering the ability of unelected judges to impose sweeping national rulings—something Trump and his base have long claimed is necessary to restore constitutional order.