Senator Chuck Grassley may be 90 years old, but when it comes to defending the constitutional order, he’s clearly still got more gas in the tank than half of Washington combined. This week, the Iowa Republican reignited a long-overdue conversation with the introduction of the Judicial Relief Clarification Act—a bill aimed at curbing the growing trend of federal district judges issuing nationwide injunctions, often with sweeping effects that stretch far beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. Translation: he’s trying to stop unelected judges from playing emperor.
These so-called “universal injunctions” have become a favorite tool for judicial activists who want to block federal policy with the stroke of a pen—regardless of what the executive branch or even Congress has decided. And lately, they’ve been weaponized with uncanny precision against President Trump’s policies, particularly in areas where he’s sought to clean up the chaotic mess known as America’s voting system.
Just Announced 🚨🚨🚨@ChuckGrassley on Monday is introducing legislation that promises to end the possibility of ROGUE Judges by clarifying their role through congressional action
(RP) if you want @LeaderJohnThune and @SpeakerJohnson to get this done pic.twitter.com/RaVSQilytp
— @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸 (@Chicago1Ray) May 6, 2025
Case in point: just last week, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in D.C. issued a nationwide injunction against Trump’s executive order requiring voter ID and proof-of-citizenship for federal elections. That’s right—requiring someone to show a passport or birth certificate to vote was apparently so outrageous that it needed to be halted everywhere, not just in the judge’s district. Forget states’ rights, forget separation of powers. In today’s judicial playground, all it takes is one robe and a gavel to nullify the will of 330 million people.
Grassley’s response? Enough is enough. As he put it bluntly, “Judges are not policymakers.” And he’s not wrong. The Constitution doesn’t grant district judges the power to override the entire executive branch. Yet that’s exactly what’s been happening with increasing regularity—and almost always when Trump or another Republican dares to take decisive action.
The Judicial Relief Clarification Act would put an end to this legal overreach by explicitly banning lower courts from issuing universal injunctions. Instead, judges would be restricted to applying rulings only within their legal jurisdiction, like they were originally intended to do. Imagine that—judges doing their jobs instead of moonlighting as legislators.
The timing couldn’t be more important. With the Supreme Court preparing to hear arguments on May 15 in a case tied to birthright citizenship and Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, the issue of judicial scope is back on the national radar. The president’s position—that the amendment was intended specifically to cover the descendants of former slaves, not every child born on U.S. soil to a tourist or illegal immigrant—has sparked outrage in legal circles, many of which responded by rushing to issue—you guessed it—nationwide injunctions.
Even Grassley pointed out that some Democrats used to agree with him—back when it was convenient, of course. But now that a Republican is in office and trying to exercise executive authority, those same Democrats have rediscovered their love for judicial supremacy. It’s an odd version of checks and balances where every branch of government checks only the presidency, so long as a Republican holds it.
Senator Dick Durbin, not surprisingly, tried to force a resolution demanding Trump comply with every district judge’s whim. Grassley’s response was on point: the president shouldn’t have to seek permission from 600 different judges just to do his job. Executive authority means something—or at least it used to.
🚨 JUST IN: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is leading a renewed effort in Congress to rein in the power of federal judges who issue sweeping rulings that apply nationwide.
“Universal injunctions are an unconstitutional abuse of judicial power.”https://t.co/8RspBO85PC
— Proud Elephant 🇺🇸🦅 (@ProudElephantUS) May 6, 2025
For those wondering whether Grassley’s bill could pass through reconciliation, the short answer is no. Thanks to the Byrd Rule, which bars non-budgetary measures from being snuck through that process, Republicans will need to navigate the traditional legislative route in a Senate that’s anything but predictable. Still, the effort to draw attention to this issue is a victory in itself.
Whether the bill passes or not, the conversation it sparks is long overdue. If America is going to have a functioning government, it can’t be hijacked by a single district judge with a political agenda. And thanks to Chuck Grassley, that message is finally being put back on the table.
