Instead, Republican leaders are gearing up for votes on key measures that would restrict the power of federal judges like James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, to issue national injunctions.

The House Rules Committee is expected to meet Tuesday morning on whether to advance Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) bill, the No Rogue Rulings Act. The legislation would prohibit a district court from issuing an injunction unless the injunction applies only to the parties in the specific case before said court.

The committee was expected to vote on the legislation Monday evening but recessed without holding a vote.

During the Rules Committee hearing, Issa said the bill would prevent a backlog of cases heading to the Supreme Court that could cost the administration valuable time.

“It is clear it has gotten out of control. … The high court finds itself to have to see case after case after case. That is not appropriate,” Issa said.

It’s not uncommon for the judicial branch to stop a president’s executive agenda, as has been a tradition in the balance of powers set out in the Constitution. Former President Barack Obama’s 2015 immigration plan to expand his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was blocked in court. President Joe Biden also faced repeated courtroom setbacks, with his eviction moratorium, federal mask mandate, and student loan plans overturned by federal judges.

But GOP lawmakers are arguing that the recent nationally binding injunctions are nothing more than a few judges who have an agenda against Trump’s White House.

Democrats have pushed back against the bill, arguing it is not the proper way to deal with a ruling Republicans disagree with. But Republicans have cited a 2023 brief filed by 240 Democrats, including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), warning of “perilous consequences” resulting from a district judge’s nationwide injunction during the Biden administration.

Democrats also pushed back against Republican lawmakers who have placed certain judges’ “wanted” photos and locations outside their offices. Issa and Rules Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) condemned violence against officials, and Issa also said he didn’t think pictures of the judges and their home addresses should be posted.

“I go back to what Chief Justice Roberts said: The proper way to deal with this, if you think someone’s got it wrong, is you appeal the decision. You don’t try to impeach the judge or change the rules of the sudden,” Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said during the Rules Committee hearing.

The bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee in early March. With Monday night’s vote out of the Rules Committee, the measure will come to the floor on Tuesday for a procedural rule vote and a final passage vote on Wednesday.

With a razor-thin majority due to vacancies and recent deaths, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) can only afford to lose two Republicans to pass legislation along party lines. Impeachment would require a full House chamber vote by a two-thirds majority, which would be difficult given that some centrist Republicans, and even Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, have expressed hesitation to impeach and urged the appeals process to play out.

If it made it through the House, the Senate would hold a trial. A conviction and removal would also need two-thirds, or 67 senators. Republicans hold only 53 seats.

Johnson has tempered the flames of impeachment pushed by hard-line conservatives, noting it’s an “extraordinary measure” and that there are more “alternatives” they are exploring to address what the GOP says is a “serious threat to our system.”

One of those alternatives is committee hearings. On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee, led by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), will hold a hearing titled “Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Limits on the Federal Courts.” Witnesses include former Speaker Newt Gingrich, Heritage Foundation senior legal research fellow Paul Larkin, and Cindy Romero, a “victim of criminal activity” by Tren de Aragua. 

The hearing comes a few weeks after Boasberg paused the Trump administration’s deportations of hundreds of Venezuelan illegal immigrants that the president authorized under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The decision caused harsh rebuke from GOP lawmakers and Trump allies who called his decision “politically motivated” and “radical.”

Over in the Senate, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are introducing bills similar to Issa’s that target the nationwide injunctions as an alternative to impeachment.

Grassley, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, dropped the Judicial Relief Clarification Act on Monday that would restrain the ability for lower courts to issue universal injunctions and allow for temporary restraining orders to be “immediately appealable” to make sure “prudence wins out over rash decisions handed down in the heat of a political moment.”

TOUGH ROAD TO IMPEACHING JUDGES RUNS THROUGH HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Hawley, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, unveiled legislation last week that would similarly limit the scope of nationwide injunctions. He is also planning for a hearing on “judicial overreach” on Wednesday.

Lee introduced the Restraining Judicial Activists Act of 2025 on March 24 to create a three-judge district court to oversee rulings against the executive branch, with those sitting on the panel selected by Roberts. The body would include one circuit and two district judges.