Republican congressmen are gearing up for a fight against federal judges appointed by Democrat presidents overruling President Donald Trump’s actions.
So far, Republican Reps. Brandon Gill of Texas, Eli Crane of Arizona, and Andy Ogles of Tennessee have all filed articles of impeachment against judges who have overruled Trump’s orders, claiming they have overstepped their authority.
But lawmakers such as Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., are also proposing laws and hearings that could counter the judges’ actions.
The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now
Here’s how the debate in Congress on how to counter what the lawmakers see as judicial activism is developing.
The congressional push against Democrat-appointed judges was prompted by numerous rulings against Trump’s actions on immigration, the military, and the federal bureaucracy.
Trump responded to Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia James Boasberg’s enjoining of deportation flights by accusing Boasberg and others of overreach and calling on Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court to counter them.
“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do,” wrote Trump on Truth Social. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
Democrats have also seized on the issue.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for example, praised the actions of Democrat-appointed judges in rejecting criticism that his party was ineffective at countering Trump.
“The good news here is, we did put 235 judges, progressive judges, judges not under the control of Trump, last year on the bench, and they are ruling against Trump time after time after time,” said Schumer.
With a number of impeachment articles of Democrat-appointed judges now introduced in the House, it’s clear that some Republicans are preparing for battle, but members are still debating on how best to go about it.
The impeachment process would require a simple majority in the House, at a time when Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., is focused on the budget reconciliation process.
After a successful impeachment, conviction in the Senate would require a two-thirds majority, meaning Republicans would need at least 14 votes from Democratic senators in addition to their own—an unlikely scenario.
Others, such as Jordan, have proposed legislation that would curb some of judges’ power to overrule presidential authority.
“Everything is on the table. We’re considering all options. That’s why we passed legislation,” Jordan said in a CNN interview. “There may be a legislative—another legislative remedy we want to look at.”
Issa has led the charge in proposing two judicial remedies of his own.
The No Rogue Rulings Act and the JUDGES Act have now both been approved by the House Judiciary Committee, both of which limit injunction powers of the district courts. Johnson has endorsed Issa’s legislation.
In his CNN interview, Jordan also emphasized a third approach—Judiciary Committee hearings, which would shine a spotlight on the rulings of Democrat-appointed judges who have hamstrung many of the early actions of the new administration.
He added, “We’re going to hold hearings on this entire issue, the 15 injunctions that have been done in an eight-week time frame, [including] Judge Boasberg’s decision.”
Jordan has the support of House GOP leadership in his call for hearings on the matter.
House Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., approved of Jordan’s approach in a statement to The Daily Signal.
“Chuck Schumer touts his role in confirming hundreds of ‘progressive judges’ and cheers their recent rulings against President Trump. House Republicans are pushing for unbiased benches,” said Emmer.
“House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan will be exposing these judges for the political activists they are, and the House will not allow the rot within our court system to go unaddressed,” he said.
Johnson also has supported the idea of judiciary hearings, saying that the committee will “expose the worst offenders.”