Darrell Issa’s No Rogue Rulings Act is Personal

Why I Oppose the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA)

On April 9, the House voted to pass the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA, HR 1526), sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa, the incumbent representative for California’s 48th Congressional District. The act is now awaiting Senate approval before President Trump can sign it.

NORRA is dangerous. It would handicap the ability of courts to quickly enjoin unlawful action by the executive branch. The bill erodes the judiciary’s check on executive overreach and undermines the courts’ ability to uphold the rule of law and protect civil rights.

Why This Matters to Me

My opposition to NORRA is personal. I’m not just one of Issa’s opponents in the 2026 election — I’m an immigration attorney whose focus and passion is using federal courts as a tool to fight on behalf of immigrant families.

With the immeasurable assistance of a dedicated team of attorneys and paralegals, we’ve won multiple preliminary injunctions against immigration agencies during both the Trump and Biden administrations — blocking unlawful actions and securing relief for thousands of families who came “the legal way.”

At least five of these nationwide injunctions would not have been possible under NORRA. But don’t take my word for it — here’s the record:

These injunctions stopped overly restrictive immigration policies that should never have been in effect. Without them, thousands of immigrants with valid visas would have been denied entry or never received their visas at all.

Issa’s “Spin” vs. Reality

Issa claims NORRA merely prevents U.S. District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions — implying higher courts should handle such cases. If we didn’t know better, we might think that’s simple ignorance of how the courts work.

But we do know better. Issa has co-sponsored a bill to put Trump’s face on U.S. currency and even nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. NORRA is no accident — it’s part of a broader effort to insulate Trump from judicial scrutiny by stripping federal judges of the power to stop him.

What’s at Stake

All thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeal already face overwhelming backlogs. It often takes more than a year to get rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court hears only 70–80 cases per year — about 1% of petitions filed. Forcing emergency injunctions to start in higher courts means decisions will arrive too late, after the damage is done.

In every injunction case my colleagues and I won, immigrant families faced statutory deadlines. Without expedited relief from district courts, they would have lost their opportunity to immigrate permanently. Because those injunctions were possible, thousands of families entered the U.S. legally — strengthening our communities and our economy.

The Bottom Line

Under Issa’s NORRA, none of that would have been possible. District Court judges would be powerless to prevent irreparable harm. Trump could act first and dare the courts to catch up later. That’s not checks and balances — that’s unchecked power.