WASHINGTON — House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is experiencing increasing pressure from President Donald Trump and some congressional allies to initiate impeachment proceedings against judges obstructing his agenda.
However, a proposal brought forth by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., may offer Johnson an alternative route, enabling his colleagues to express their support for Trump on this matter while sidestepping politically risky impeachment votes that are unlikely to succeed.
Issa’s proposed legislation, known as the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” aims to prevent district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, the type of rulings that have hindered Trump’s ability to implement his policies on various issues—from deportation to cuts in federal agencies—just two months into his administration. Johnson, who has a background in constitutional law, endorsed the bill over the weekend.
“Our federal judiciary is experiencing a significant failure, and nearly every week, another judge disregards the tradition of restraint and chooses to become a part of the Trump resistance,” Issa, who serves as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, stated in an interview with NBC News on Monday.
“Our legislation is a constitutional answer to a national dilemma, which is why it is on track to be presented on the House floor and then to the Senate,” he added.
While some staunch conservatives in the House are putting forth impeachment articles against specific judges—most notably U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who blocked Trump’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants—it’s improbable that such resolutions could garner sufficient Republican backing to achieve a majority in the House. Furthermore, 67 votes would be necessary for convictions in the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 edge.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the Judiciary Committee chair, mentioned on Fox News that his committee will conduct a hearing next week centered on Boasberg and noted that Issa’s bill is a “worthwhile piece of legislation.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., who oversees the floor agenda, indicated that a vote on the bill would take place next week.
During a Sunday appearance on Fox News, Johnson seemed to downplay the prospect of impeaching judges, instead emphasizing the appeals process as a means to counteract unfavorable rulings.
“The line does seem to be crossed currently,” asserted Johnson, a former attorney with experience in religious liberty cases. Reflecting on his past, he remarked: “I never left the courtroom with the thought of impeaching those judges. I sought to reach the appellate court as swiftly as possible to have their decisions overturned.”
“Nevertheless, something seems to be happening now,” he continued, highlighting numerous Trump policies that have faced federal injunctions. “There’s something wrong; I believe it needs to be addressed.”
When asked about the potential for pursuing impeachment of judges on Monday at the Capitol, Johnson informed reporters that “everything is on the table” but also stressed that “impeachment is a drastic measure” and that Republicans are considering “all options.”
Other senior House Republicans are not eager to impeach judges who have ruled against Trump. Rep. Roger Williams, from Texas and chair of the Small Business Committee, stated Monday that he is primarily focused on Trump’s decision for the Small Business Administration to assume control of the Education Department’s student loan portfolio.
“I believe the judge is overstepping. We’ll see what unfolds,” said Williams regarding Boasberg.
Other Republicans, including moderate Rep. Don Bacon from Nebraska, expressed their opposition to the idea of impeaching judges based on their rulings.
“I disagree with that sentiment,” Bacon shared with NBC News. “Unless someone commits an illegal act—judges have been impeached for bribery or other misconduct, not merely for interpreting the Constitution. If you disagree, you should appeal. That has been our tradition since 1789.”
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., a former chair of two House committees, cautioned that impeaching judges could backfire on Republicans when Democrats regain control of the House in the future.
“What I encourage my colleagues to consider is that while we may not be pleased with how certain judges are ruling now, we are setting a precedent that will affect the years and decades ahead. How do we ensure that we do not create consequences for conservative judges in the future?” Lucas posed in an interview.
He expressed openness to Issa’s bill but not with great enthusiasm.
“I’m not an attorney, but from my understanding of the Constitution — post-Supreme Court — we establish all lower courts and define their operational procedures,” Lucas noted. “I think his bill falls within its legal authority, yet it represents a significant shift as well.”
With Republicans holding 218 seats compared to Democrats’ 213 in the House, Johnson can only afford two GOP defections on any vote, which explains the lack of confidence in advancing impeachment against judges—an effort that would require simple-majority support.
However, should the House successfully impeach a judge, it would trigger an automatic impeachment trial in the Senate. That could consume crucial floor time at a critical juncture when Republicans in both chambers are trying to advance legislation to support Trump’s agenda.
On Monday, Boasberg rejected the government’s bid to lift his suspension on deportations under the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798, stating that Venezuelan nationals deserve the opportunity to contest allegations that they are affiliated with a gang. Boasberg’s ruling is currently under appeal to a federal court, which heard arguments on Monday.
Boasberg’s initial decision prompted freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, to file articles of impeachment against Boasberg last week. Boasberg serves as the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and was appointed by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“Activist judges are aware that even if their decisions are overturned on appeal, the process may take months or even years, wasting valuable time from Trump’s presidency and hindering him from fulfilling the mandate that voters entrusted him with,” Gill stated on X last Friday. “This is why the Supreme Court must intervene, and Congress must take action NOW.”
