House Judiciary Committee Chair and Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan has called for limits to be imposed on federal district judges to stop them from issuing nationwide injunctions.

The representative appeared on the Newsmax show “Rob Schmitt Tonight” on Monday where he lamented what federal district judges have done to stop the administration of President Donald Trump from enacting its agenda.

And, he said, the House has passed legislation to reign in their power, though the Senate has not acted.

“We passed the legislation that said one of these federal district judges who issues an injunction, the injunction shouldn’t apply nationwide,” the representative said. “It should apply to the parties in that case in that jurisdiction, not to the entire country.”

The House passed the “No Rogue Judges Act,” on April 9 in a 219-213 vote. If adopted by the Senate and signed by President Trump the legislation would prohibit district judges from granting an injunction in favor of nonparties except in specific situations,

“This is about fundamental fairness,” he said.

Jordan mentioned that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has even addressed the issue and recommended the use of the appellate courts.

“Justice Roberts put out a statement a month or so ago about, you know, the proper course of action is if you don’t like the decision of a district judge, is to, you know, use the appellate courts,” he said. “And I get all that. But I think his statement just sort of underscores the focus that’s now on this issue.”

“I do think some of these cases are going to get to the Supreme Court in a pretty quick manner, pretty quick time frame,” the representative said.

But he remains hopeful that the legislation that passed in the House will pass in the Senate and scale back some of the power given to district court judges.

“We think there’s a chance that that bill hopefully could get through the Senate and get signed by President Trump and scale some of this back, some of the power that these district judges have currently,” he said.

The House Judiciary Committee’s section of a major spending bill includes a provision that critics argue could severely restrict judges’ ability to hold U.S. government officials in contempt of court—effectively giving the Trump administration leeway to disregard certain court orders.

The provision, known as Section 70303, appears in the final paragraph of the 116-page legislative text approved by the committee last week as part of the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution process, Roll Call reported.

The language bars courts from using federal funds to enforce contempt citations against government officials who fail to comply with court orders, unless plaintiffs post a monetary bond in accordance with civil procedure rules—a requirement that legal experts note is rarely applied in cases challenging federal policy.

But a House Judiciary Committee aide said the provision is meant “basically to stop frivolous lawsuits.”

Democrats argue that the provision would significantly undermine judicial authority, especially at a time when the Trump administration has shown open hostility toward judges issuing rulings against its policy initiatives.

At least two federal judges—Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court of Maryland—have indicated they may hold Trump administration officials in contempt in immigration-related cases.

But Republicans counter that those two judges in particular, but also several others appointed by Democratic presidents, have regularly overstepped their authority with rulings that improperly and unconstitutionally limit the power of President Trump to run the Executive Branch. As such, some of them, as well as the president himself, have called for impeachment proceedings against at least one judge, Boasberg.

A House Republican lawmaker has introduced articles of impeachment against him after he blocked the Trump administration’s deportation flights conducted under the Alien Enemies Act, Fox News reported in March.

“For the past several weeks, we’ve seen several rogue activist judges try to impede the president from exercising, not only the mandate voters gave him, but his democratic and constitutional authority to keep the American people safe,” Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. “This is another example of a rogue judge overstepping his…authority.”