Speaker Johnson Floats Eliminating Federal Courts

House Speaker Mike Johnson floated the possibility of eliminating federal courts or adjusting the judiciary’s funding, as congressional Republicans consider ways to rein in judges who have ruled against the Trump administration.

The Louisiana Republican previewed possible actions against the federal courts as part of his caucus’ battle with the judiciary, following a series of nationwide orders by various federal judges against President Donald Trump’s efforts to slash the government workforce and heighten immigration enforcement.

“We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power—funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act, so stay tuned for that,” Johnson said.

House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters separately that “everything’s on the table” in his party’s bid to curb judicial power, including legislative solutions, the appropriations process, and oversight. He said he’s mentioned the issue to Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), who chairs the House appropriations panel that oversees court funding.

However, Jordan said he wouldn’t be interested in cutting funding for judicial security.

Their remarks come as Republicans in the House and the Senate have more aggressively decried federal judges that have blocked Trump administration actions with nationwide rulings. House Republicans have filed impeachment resolutions against five federal judges.

Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) said he is not planning to force a quick vote on his resolution to impeach the Washington, D.C.-based judge who halted Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to round up and deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador.

Gill, a freshman and conservative hardliner, introduced the measure to oust US District Judge James Boasberg after Trump railed against the jurist online. The resolution (H. Res. 229) says that Boasberg used “his judicial position to advance political gain while interfering with the President’s constitutional prerogatives.”

Impeachment would be a tough vote for moderates and would likely fail on the floor given Johnson’s narrow majority, and Republicans leaders are eyeing alternative legislative vehicles to curb judicial power.

Gill told Bloomberg Government that he plans to speak with GOP leaders about options on the table to address judges who oppose the Trump agenda.

Nationwide Injunctions

House Republicans also plan to vote next week on a proposal that would restrict trial court judges’ authority to issue rulings that apply nationwide.

The bill (HR 1526) put forth by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) would block district judges from issuing decisions that apply beyond those involved in the litigation, with some exceptions for multistate litigation. The House Judiciary Committee advanced the measure this month in a party line vote.

The Judiciary Committee will also hold a hearing early next week on the topic. Jordan said the panel has an idea of who will testify but isn’t ready to announce names yet. Asked whether judges will testify before the committee, Johnson said “we’ll see.”

Johnson panned the high number of injunctions against Trump and said the hearing will “highlight these abuses.”

Some moderate Republicans expressed early interest Tuesday in restricting nationwide injunctions, signaling Issa’s measure isn’t currently facing major roadblocks within the party.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) said he’s still looking at the bill, but that he thinks “it might have some advantage.” Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) said he hadn’t read the bill yet and planned to “evaluate it,” but raised concerns about nationwide injunctions.

“What we have seen is, in many instances, activist judges seeking to take matters into their own hands and assuming authorities that is really not within their purview,” Lawler said.

Still, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) was withholding judgment. He has previously said he opposes efforts to impeach judges for political reasons.

“I don’t know yet. I heard a little bit about it today,” Bacon said about his support for Issa’s bill, following the morning caucus meeting. “I’m keeping my powder dry.”

‘Potentially Lawless’

In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley on Tuesday said in floor remarks that he hopes to propose legislation to take on nationwide orders.

“The practice of sweeping nationwide injunctions, broad restraining orders, and judicial policymaking must end,” the Iowa Republican said. “It’s unconstitutional, it’s anti-democratic and it’s imprudent. If the Supreme Court won’t stop it, then Congress must.”’

Grassley also plans a hearing on the issue, and called the recent spate of orders issued against Trump policies “potentially lawless.”

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) announced on Monday he introduced legislation to prevent district court judges from handing down nationwide orders.

Hawley told Bloomberg Law on Tuesday he’s invited all of Republican colleagues to join the bill.