Republicans on Capitol Hill are grappling with how to respond to judicial actions they perceive as unfairly targeting President Donald Trump and his administration.
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images/Getty Images North America
hide caption
toggle caption
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images/Getty Images North America
Republicans in Congress are strategizing to counteract the federal judiciary’s rulings, expressing concerns that activist judges are unjustly targeting the Trump administration. However, there is significant division within the GOP regarding the appropriate response, facing immense political and legal challenges in counteracting court actions.
President Trump’s initiatives to reshape the federal government, including the use of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency and a wartime statute to deport Venezuelans, have been scrutinized in court proceedings.
Some Republican lawmakers have introduced articles of impeachment against judges, while others seek legislation to prevent district judges from issuing national injunctions. This effort follows public pressure from Trump and Musk urging action against these judges.
Democratic representatives have responded dismissively, arguing that the GOP’s actions are politically motivated and legally unfounded, as they stem from disagreements regarding legal interpretations rather than accusations of corruption or misconduct among judges.
Divisions Within the GOP on Impeachment
Rep. Brandon Gill, a Republican from Texas, claims that U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg has overstepped his authority and has introduced a resolution for his impeachment. Boasberg’s ruling questioned the Trump administration’s application of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 during ICE’s actions involving Venezuelans. Trump has likewise called for Boasberg’s ousting, with the administration contesting this ruling, alleging that the individuals involved were affiliated with Tren de Aragua, a terrorist gang.
Gill has claimed that 19 other lawmakers support his resolution, asserting that the judge has overreached by “usurping his powers as Commander in Chief to manage foreign policy and repel alien enemies.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has condemned the GOP’s initiatives, stating, “Threatening judges with impeachment or retaliation for fulfilling their constitutional duties is an act of outlaw tyranny, not constitutional governance.”
Some Republicans acknowledge that they lack the votes necessary to pass an impeachment resolution. Jim Jordan, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, indicated that “everything is on the table,” revealing he had briefed Trump over the weekend regarding his plans for action.
Jordan is expected to hold a hearing next week, mentioning that 15 national injunctions have been granted in response to actions taken by the Trump administration.
“The public is aware of a concerted effort against the president to implement policies he was elected to enact,” Jordan remarked. “This is concerning.”
Despite the challenges, Gill insists that introducing an impeachment bill in the House would effectively send a message to what he labels “rogue activist judges.”
Congress has historically been reluctant to exercise its authority to remove federal officials, including judges, with only 15 federal judges having been impeached, of which eight have been convicted and removed by the Senate.
Efforts to Limit District Court Decisions through Legislation
As Jordan and the Senate Judiciary Committee consider hearings, House Speaker Mike Johnson is organizing a vote next week on legislation to prohibit district judges from issuing national injunctions.
Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, who is sponsoring the legislation, asserts it aims to rectify what he perceives as a “growing trend” regarding district court decisions that have broad national implications. He emphasizes the need to define and restrict the scope of such rulings, claiming “if 700 judges act like the Supreme Court, we undermine its purpose.”
Issa believes his bill is an immediate step Congress could take.
“Impeachment ought to be a rarely utilized tool,” he noted. “Well-crafted legislation regarding the role of district court judges is always in order, as has been the practice since the establishment of district courts, created by Congress.”
Johnson has echoed concerns about the unusual responses from the courts towards the Trump administration, supporting Issa’s bill. He criticized the trend as a violation of equal justice and separation of powers, stating that judges overstepping their boundaries undermines the intentions of the founders.
Sen. Josh Hawley from Missouri, who is advocating similar legislation, points out that some Democrats expressed frustration over national injunctions during the legal challenges to President Biden’s actions, indicating a systemic concern. He argues that district judges should not possess the authority to make sweeping nationwide rulings.
“It’s essential to clarify that district courts can only bind parties before them or within their jurisdiction, while only the Supreme Court has the authority to bind parties nationally,” Hawley elaborated.
Additionally, Republicans are contemplating limiting or restructuring funding for federal courts through the appropriations process, although such efforts will likely encounter opposition from Democrats.
Hawley referenced historical conflicts between President Thomas Jefferson and the judiciary, emphasizing the need for the GOP Senate to fill vacant federal judge positions instead of eliminating them, stating, “I’d prefer we fill those spots with Republican judges rather than eliminate them.”
