Unelected judges have become overreaching nightmares to an elected president. So Senator Tuberville introduces legislation to limit the power of activist judges as President Trump faces unprecedented judicial interference with his constitutional authority to carry out the agenda that Americans voted for. The legislation would require parties seeking nationwide injunctions to file class action lawsuits and restrict court decisions to parties directly involved. A heated House Judiciary Committee hearing recently debated legislation that would limit district judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
Proposed Legislation Aims to Rein in Judicial Overreach
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) has taken decisive action against what many conservatives view as judicial activism by introducing the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025. The legislation aims to curtail the power of federal judges to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions that have repeatedly halted President Trump’s policy initiatives. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has joined as a co-sponsor of the bill, which would require parties seeking nationwide relief to file class action lawsuits and would limit court decisions to directly affected parties rather than the entire nation.
The senator has been outspoken about his concerns regarding judicial interference with democratically supported policies. He emphasized that over 77 million Americans voted for President Trump and his agenda, arguing that “liberal judges should not be allowed to issue injunctions on policies they do not agree with.” The Justice Department has frequently been forced to appeal to the Supreme Court through emergency appeals, often referred to as the “shadow docket,” to address lower court rulings against Trump administration policies.
Genius idea by DeSantis. Congress could strip activist judges of jurisdiction with a majority vote, unlike 2/3 required for impeachment. Congress can pass legislation that excludes specific issues, case types or dispute categories from federal court review. This ensures the… pic.twitter.com/347evwZlQn
— 💥Texas Girl💥 (@Ilegvm) March 20, 2025
Controversial Judicial Decisions Blocking Presidential Authority
One recent example of judicial intervention involved U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, who blocked President Trump’s executive order banning transgender troops from military service. Judge Reyes, the first openly gay federal judge in Washington, D.C., has a documented history of Democratic Party activism, including providing legal assistance on election law issues and advocating for refugee rights. Despite her progressive background, Reyes has occasionally sided with Trump in other cases and has criticized the previous Biden Justice Department.
“We need our justice system to focus on upholding the Constitution, not pushing an agenda. If judges have a problem with that, they can run for political office.” – Tommy Tuberville
The White House has responded forcefully to these judicial interventions. Spokesman Harrison Fields stated, “President Trump is delivering on the common-sense policies that Americans overwhelmingly voted for, and leftist judges shouldn’t deprive the president of his constitutional authority to enact his lawful agenda.” This messaging strategy aims to frame the issue as unelected judges thwarting the democratic will expressed in the recent election, rather than focusing on complex legal arguments that might not resonate with voters.
Sen. Mike Lee discusses plan to crack down on activist judges: "One of the best things we could do is pass legislation that I introduced that would limit jurisdiction of the Courts." pic.twitter.com/8douW2F4KE
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) March 27, 2025
Congressional Hearing Exposes Partisan Divide
The House Judiciary Committee recently held a contentious hearing focused on “activist judges” blocking President Trump’s agenda. The hearing laid the groundwork for a vote on legislation sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) that would limit district judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. During the proceedings, Republicans and Democrats clashed over the constitutional implications of such restrictions, with Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) arguing that some judges are politically motivated to obstruct the administration’s actions.
The hearing also addressed an impeachment resolution against Judge James Boasberg, introduced by Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), which was criticized by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California). Despite the heated debate, the immediate future of Issa’s bill remains uncertain, as House floor activity was canceled for the remainder of the week. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) has also called on Chief Justice John Roberts to take action, urging him to “rein in activist judges” who are impeding the implementation of policies supported by the American electorate.