Appearing on Newsmax, Jordan emphasized that injunctions should apply only to the parties involved in a case, not across the entire country. The House recently passed the “No Rogue Judges Act” by a narrow 219-213 vote. If approved by the Senate and signed by Trump, the bill would sharply limit judges’ ability to halt federal policies nationwide.

Jordan said the move was about “fundamental fairness,” pointing out that Chief Justice John Roberts has previously suggested appellate courts, not district courts, are the proper venue for major legal challenges.

Critics, however, are warning about deeper implications. A provision buried in the House Judiciary Committee’s recent budget proposal—Section 70303—could further limit judges’ power by blocking federal funds from being used to enforce contempt orders against government officials unless plaintiffs post costly bonds. Legal experts argue this could shield officials from accountability and diminish judicial oversight.

Democrats call it a dangerous weakening of the judiciary, while Republicans accuse certain judges of overreach, citing cases where courts have blocked Trump-era immigration actions. Some judges, like James Boasberg and Paula Xinis, have faced calls for impeachment from Trump allies.