Federal judges seem to be playing a high-stakes game of “who’s really in charge?” — and Congress is charging in to put a stop to it.

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has faced more injunctions against his administration than any other president in U.S. history. This has sparked a fierce debate over the scope of judicial power. For example, among many contentious rulings was a D.C. district judge’s order that blocked the deportation of dangerous criminals tied to foreign gangs — a ruling that didn’t just apply to the capital but reverberated nationwide.

This isn’t just a legal hiccup, but a full-blown crisis, according to Tony Perkins, host of “Washington Watch” and president of Family Research Council. On Tuesday’s episode, he called it “an unprecedented misuse … of their judicial power.” However, Congress isn’t sitting idly by. In fact, this growing trend is what prompted Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to introduce the Judicial Relief Clarification Act to put an end to this lower court activism. Grassley joined Perkins on air to break down “how urgent this legislation is needed to clarify the scope of the court’s authority.”

The bill, he explained, “brings attention to the issue and how these national injunctions have been used to fight President Trump’s agenda.” With nearly 700 district judges spanning 93 districts, the balance tips when a single ruling — like “a national injunction in a California district” — overrides the will of an elected president. In such cases, Grassley contended, that judge morphs into “a policymaker instead of being a judge interpreting law.”

“My legislation,” he continued, “would stop district judges from dictating national policy. It would limit judges to deciding cases and controversies” as laid out “directly from the Constitution limiting what judges can do.”

Historically, Perkins pointed out, district court rulings applied only to the parties before the court and the judge’s specific jurisdiction. “[I]t’s highly unusual that we see the courts taking such far-reaching actions,” Perkins added, suggesting “the only thing we’re left to assume here … is that this is … judges who are trying to stop the agenda of President Trump and the Republicans.”

The D.C. judge’s gang deportation ruling is just one flashpoint. Other similar injunctions include a federal judge blocking “the Pentagon from implementing its policy to make gender dysphoria a disqualifying condition for military service.” “Left-wing activists and restrictive court rulings” have also put obstacles in the path of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. In one case, a district judge blocked Trump’s executive order designed to keep biological men out of women’s prisons.

Considering Congress holds constitutional authority over the lower courts, Grassley believes it’s time for lawmakers to act. So far, he’s rallied the support of 21 Republicans. He believes the nature of his bill means it “should get bipartisan support,” and yet, he’s not confident it will. “[T]he Democrats are using this tool very effectively,” he noted.

Perkins agreed, but he also noted the double-edged nature of this issue. “[N]ot to the degree that we are seeing it now,” he explained, “but we did see it during the Biden administration.” And ultimately, while Grassley’s bill may have been inspired by judges that undermine the executive branch’s authority, it’s really about future accountability. As experts point out, national injunctions left unchecked could enable either side of the aisle to put serious snags in the president’s agenda if even one judge disagrees with it.

The Judicial Relief Clarification Act is Grassley’s line in the sand — a bid to pull the judiciary back into its constitutional lane and restore balance to the democratic process. Many have already spoken out against judicial activism, including several members of Congress. As House Speaker Mike Johnson previously stated: “[T]hese decisions are as dangerous as they are unconstitutional. … [T]he courts were never intended to be able to step in and act as though they are the commander in chief themselves. No individual federal judge should be able to enjoin what a president is doing in the way that is being done.”

The bill’s fate remains uncertain, but for now, Grassley and Republicans are determined to stem the tide.