Category: fox-news/politics/judiciary

Trump-backed bill to stop ‘rogue’ judges passes House

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday to limit federal district judges' ability to affect Trump administration policies on a national scale.

The No Rogue Rulings Act, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., passed the House and limits district courts' power to issue U.S.-wide injunctions, instead forcing them to focus their scope on the parties directly affected in most cases.

All but one Republican lawmaker voted for the bill, which passed 219 to 213. No Democrats voted in favor.

The Trump administration has faced more than 15 nationwide injunctions since the Republican commander-in-chief took office, targeting a wide range of President Donald Trump's policies, from birthright citizenship reform to anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

Issa himself was confident the bill would pass, telling Fox News Digital on Tuesday morning, "We've got the votes."

SENATE GOP PUSHES TRUMP BUDGET FRAMEWORK THROUGH AFTER MARATHON VOTE SERIES

He was less certain of the bill getting Democratic support, though he noted former Biden administration solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar made her own complaints about district judges' powers during the previous White House term.

"We're hoping some people look at it on its merits rather than its politics," Issa said.

Rep. Derek Schmidt, R-Kan., who has an amendment on the bill aimed at limiting plaintiffs' ability to "judge shop" cases to favorable districts, told Fox News Digital before the vote, "A lot of things get called commonsense around here, but this one genuinely is."

"The basic policy of trying to rein in the overuse of nationwide injunctions was supported by Democrats before. It's supported by Republicans now, and I'm hoping [this vote will] be supported by both," he said.

Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, who, like Schmidt and Issa, is a House Judiciary Committee member, told Fox News Digital after the bill's passage, "Many Democrat-appointed lower court judges have conducted themselves like activist liberal lawyers in robes while attempting to stop President Trump's nationwide reforms. The No Rogue Rulings Act limits this unchecked power."

Another GOP lawmaker, Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa, told Fox News Digital, "More than 77 million Americans voted for [Trump's] pro-American policies and want to see them implemented quickly. There is no reason that activist judges whose authority does not extend nationally should be allowed to completely stop [his] agenda."

Republicans' unity on the issue comes despite some early divisions over how to hit back at what they have called "rogue" and "activist" judges.

MEET THE TRUMP-PICKED LAWMAKERS GIVING SPEAKER JOHNSON A FULL HOUSE GOP CONFERENCE

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., who supported impeachment and Issa's bill, told Fox News Digital, "The judicial vendetta against President Trump’s agenda needs to be checked. Nationwide injunctions by activists judges have stood in the way of the American people’s will and in come cases their safety, since the President was sworn into office."

Stutzman said Issa's bill "will stop individual judge’s political beliefs from preventing the wants and needs of our citizens from being implemented."

A group of conservatives had pushed to impeach specific judges who have blocked Trump's agenda, but House GOP leaders quickly quashed the effort in favor of what they see as a more effective route to take on the issue.

Despite its success in the House, however, the legislation does face uncertain odds in the Senate, where it needs at least several Democrats to hit the chamber's 60-vote threshold.

Judge Boasberg poised to hold Trump admin in contempt, takes down names of DHS officials: ‘Pretty sketchy’

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Thursday grilled Trump administration lawyers over whether they defied a court order blocking deportations under a wartime immigration law — a potential step toward holding the administration in contempt.

At issue is the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang. Boasberg pressed Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign on why the government appeared to ignore an emergency injunction last month halting those deportations.

The administration has appealed the underlying case to the Supreme Court. But for now, Boasberg is weighing whether there is probable cause to move forward with contempt proceedings — a question that remained open after a tense exchange in court.

Boasberg said he would issue a decision as early as next week on how to proceed if he finds grounds to hold the administration in contempt.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

During the hearing, Ensign was repeatedly questioned about who in the Trump administration had information about the flights and when the three deportation flights left U.S. soil for El Salvador. At least 261 migrants were deported that day, including more than 100 Venezuelan nationals who were subject to removal "solely on the basis" of the law temporarily blocked by the court.

"You maintain that the government was in full compliance with the court’s order on March 15, correct?" Boasberg asked Ensign. 

Ensign said yes, to which the judge responded: "It seems to me the government acted in bad faith that day." 

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and would survive a court challenge, you would not have operated the way that you did," Boasberg said.  

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

He repeatedly questioned Ensign about his knowledge of the flights and whether any related materials were classified, which could have triggered state secrets protections.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights, and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections. 

But according to Ensign, that may not have been an issue. He told Boasberg the flight information likely wasn’t classified, prompting the judge to wonder aloud why it hadn’t been shared with him in an ex parte setting.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? he asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

Another focus of Thursday’s hearing was timing — both when President Donald Trump signed the proclamation authorizing use of the Alien Enemies Act, and when federal agents began loading planes with migrants bound for El Salvador.

Boasberg noted that the Trump administration began loading the planes the morning of March 15, hours before the flights left the U.S.

"So then it’s not crazy to infer there was prior knowledge and actions ahead of the Saturday night deportations?" he asked Ensign.

The judge pressed the lawyer over the names, locations and agencies of individuals who were privy to the removals, as well as internal conversations with other administration officials who may have been listening in to the court proceedings.

"Who did you tell about my order?" Boasberg asked. "Once the hearing was done, who did you tell?"

Ensign says he relayed the information to Department of Homeland Security contacts and State Department officials, among others.

He listed the names of the individuals, at Boasberg's request, which the judge then carefully transcribed onto a pad of paper, interjecting at times to clarify the spelling or ask for their job titles.

The hearing is the latest in a flurry of legal battles over the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. It follows Boasberg’s order requiring officials to explain why they failed to comply with his directive to return the deportation flights — and whether they knowingly defied the court.

Boasberg told both sides he would see them again next week for arguments on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, set for Tuesday.

The hearing also marks the latest clash between Trump and Boasberg, whom the president has publicly denounced as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment. 

Trump faces Judge Boasberg over migrant deportation flights defying court order

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A federal judge will hear from government lawyers Thursday to determine whether the Trump administration defied court orders when it deported hundreds of migrants to El Salvador last month.

The hearing marks the latest clash between President Donald Trump and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who Trump has publicly attacked as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment. At issue is whether the administration knowingly violated Boasberg’s emergency order, which temporarily blocked the deportations and required that any individuals removed under a centuries-old immigration law be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. Flights carrying migrants, including those deported under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, still landed in El Salvador that same night.

"Oopsie…" El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, wrote on X after they landed in his country. "Too late."

Boasberg, who issued the emergency orders at the center of the controversial and complex case, has said he intends to find out whether the administration knowingly violated them, and who, if anyone, should be held accountable.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"The government isn’t being forthcoming," Boasberg told Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign during an earlier hearing. "But I will get to the bottom of whether they complied with my order, who violated it and what the consequences will be."

At Thursday's hearing, Boasberg is expected to revisit many of the same questions he raised earlier, including how many planes left the U.S. carrying individuals deported "solely on the basis" of the Alien Enemies Act. Other questions include how many individuals were on each plane and what time and from which location each plane took off. 

Although the administration has already appealed the case twice – first to the D.C. Circuit, which upheld Boasberg’s order, and then to the Supreme Court – the judge is still pressing for answers. Thursday’s hearing is part of his effort to determine whether the government defied the court when it carried out the deportation flights.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, has been used only three times in American history – during the War of 1812 and the two world wars – making its modern application by the Trump administration a rare legal maneuver.

Trump officials have argued invoking the law is necessary to expel dangerous individuals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who were flown to El Salvador under the administration’s new deportation policy.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs have pushed back on the administration’s use of the 1798 law, calling its use during peacetime "unprecedented."

In a brief filed to the Supreme Court earlier this week, plaintiffs argued the law permits immediate deportations only in cases of a "declared war" or an "invasion or predatory incursion" by a foreign nation, conditions they say don’t apply to the Venezuelan nationals targeted for removal.

Government lawyers have declined to disclose key details about the deportation flights, including whether any planes departed after Boasberg’s order, citing national security protections.

Boasberg had previously warned the administration of consequences if it violated his order and criticized earlier filings as "woefully insufficient," noting the government also refused his offer to submit information under seal.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The case has become a political flash point over the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch. Trump allies dismiss much of the judiciary’s involvement as the work of "activist" judges seeking to rein in the president and overstep their constitutional role.

Trump's demand for Boasberg to be impeached prompted a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in a statement. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The White House has kept up its criticism of the lower courts, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt last month accusing judges of overstepping their bounds and infringing on the president’s authority.

"The administration will move quickly to pursue Supreme Court review, defend the Constitution, and protect the American people," Leavitt said in a statement.

Republicans, Democrats trade barbs in heated hearing on activist judges blocking Trump agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democrats and Republicans repeatedly clashed on Tuesday during a lengthy hearing on what the GOP calls "activist judges" blocking President Donald Trump's agenda.

The House Judiciary Committee's subcommittees on the Constitution and on courts held the joint hearing in preparation for a House-wide vote on legislation that would limit district judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That bill is currently stalled, however, after an unrelated fight on proxy voting paralyzed the House floor.

During the hearing, Democrats repeatedly tried to press Republicans on the issue of judicial impeachments — something pushed by conservatives but that House GOP leaders have shown little appetite for pursuing.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

"Some guy I've never heard of, he, might be in Congress, introduced an impeachment resolution, and he's not here," Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said of an impeachment resolution targeting U.S. district Judge James Boasberg by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas.

"He hasn't been here for at least the last hour, and every witness here is in agreement that we really shouldn't be impeaching judges. I haven't heard a single colleague on the other side say we should be impeaching judges."

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who was co-chairing the hearing alongside Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, asked Swalwell to yield his time — but the California Democrat refused.

"I don't think they have anything to talk about with the bills, since they offered a similar bill, and even the solicitor general, as late as October of last year in the Biden administration, wanted exactly what we're moving out of committee today," Issa told Fox News Digital about Democrats' ploy.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., compared conservatives' push to impeach judges to House Republicans' impeachment inquiry efforts into former President Joe Biden — which ultimately did not end in any such proceedings.

"I guess we're taking a page out of [House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer's] playbook, we're just doing fake impeachments," Moskowitz told Fox News Digital.

But Roy, who co-led the hearing with Issa, told Fox News Digital it was about "trying to make clear that you've got a handful of judges acting, clearly politically, to stop the administration from acting."

"It's pretty clear that my Democratic colleagues prefer to defend the right of an MS-13 gang member, clearly here illegally, from being deported," Roy said.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

But Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Wis., another member of the committee, said at least one goal was to "raise the profile of the issue."

"Maybe the more headlines a hearing like this gets, it clearly sets it on the plate of Chief Justice Roberts, right, to take action and try to get control of the courts again," he said.

It's not immediately clear when Issa's bill will get a vote, after House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced House floor activity was canceled for the rest of this week.

SCOOP: Judge Boasberg impeachment push gains support despite House GOP leaders’ resistance

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: A resolution to impeach U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg is still gaining support despite House GOP leaders' hesitation to move on such a measure.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced an article of impeachment against Boasberg last month after he issued an emergency order temporarily halting the Trump administration's deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act.

Reps. Josh Brecheen, R-Okla., Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., signed onto the bill as co-sponsors last week, Fox News Digital was told, despite House GOP leaders signaling around the same time that they have little appetite to pursue that route.

The resolution now has 22 total co-sponsors – suggesting the effort is still alive and well among conservatives in the House Republican conference.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

President Donald Trump is using the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Tren De Aragua gang members to a detention facility in El Salvador. 

Boasberg's standoff with the Trump administration, which includes accusations the White House ignored his initial order that the administration has denied, has sent shock waves through Capitol Hill. 

Republicans see it as one of the most egregious examples of "rogue judges" blocking Trump's agenda. 

Trump himself singled out Boasberg and called for his impeachment over the legal showdown.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

More than a dozen injunctions have been levied against various Trump policies, with targets ranging from birthright citizenship reform to the Department of Government Efficiency.

However, House GOP leaders are hesitant to support impeachment as a method to target Boasberg and other judges – believing it to be a less effective route to accountability.

Several rank-and-file Republican lawmakers suggested to Fox News Digital last month that they would not support such a move, giving it long odds of success in the House.

Gill's resolution accused Boasberg of abusing his power.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He could still force a House-wide vote on the measure by reintroducing it as a "privileged resolution," giving leaders two legislative days to hold at least one procedural vote.

As of last week, however, Gill told Fox News Digital he had no plans to do so.

It comes as House Republicans coalesce around legislation by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit district judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions. That bill is expected to get a vote on Wednesday afternoon.

Trump allies scrutinize Judge Boasberg’s DC connections as high-stakes legal battles escalate

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Federal Judge James Boasberg is facing mounting criticism from President Donald Trump and his allies as he presides over multiple high-profile lawsuits targeting the Trump administration – cases that have now brought the judge’s personal and professional ties under fresh scrutiny. 

Boasberg, who was previously appointed to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and reportedly once roomed with Justice Brett Kavanaugh at Yale, has become a flashpoint for conservatives who accuse the judiciary of bias against the Trump administration. Now the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Boasberg's recent orders halting deportations of violent illegal immigrants and overseeing cases tied to leaked internal communications have amplified claims of partisanship and drawn fierce rebukes from Trump and his allies.

"The Chief Justice handpicked DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg to serve on the FISA court," said Mike Davis, president of the Article III Project. "The DC federal judges are in a cozy little club, and they protect their own." His comments echo a broader sentiment on the right that Boasberg’s judicial decisions – and his close ties within the legal establishment – reflect a partisan tilt against the president.

Boasberg, a Washington, D.C., native, earned an advanced degree in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 and later attended Yale Law School, where he lived with Kavanaugh, according to multiple reports.  

TRUMP UNLOADS ON JUDGE BOASBERG, 'RADICAL LEFT JUDGES' FOR HALTING DEPORTATIONS OF VIOLENT ILLEGAL ALIENS

He graduated in 1990 and clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before joining Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco as a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. He later worked at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in Washington from 1995 to 1996.

After serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Boasberg was appointed in 2002 by then-President George W. Bush to serve as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the local trial court for the District. In 2011, then-President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where he was confirmed by the Senate and received his commission on March 17, 2011.

Boasberg was appointed to serve a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA Court, by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. 

The FISA Court is made up of 11 federal judges, all of whom are hand-selected by the chief justice. After undergoing rigorous background checks, FISA Court judges are then responsible for approving surveillance requests and wiretap warrants submitted by federal prosecutors, law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Most of the court's work remains classified.

Boasberg served as the court’s presiding judge from 2020 to 2021 before returning to the D.C. District Court.

After Boasberg on March 15 ordered the Trump administration to halt its deportations of illegal immigrants under a 1798 wartime authority, Trump took to Truth Social to call for his impeachment. The president’s remarks echoed a growing chorus of conservatives who have recently called for the impeachment of federal judges overseeing his administration’s legal battles.

JUDGE IN CROSSHAIRS OF TRUMP DEPORTATION CASE ORDERS PRESERVATION OF SIGNAL MESSAGES

"I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!" Trump wrote in the post.

In an unprecedented move by the nation's high court, Roberts released a public statement shortly thereafter, denouncing impeachment as an appropriate response to judicial disagreements. 

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," he said in the statement released in mid-March.

Trump once again unloaded on Boasberg in a March 30 Truth Social post after the judge extended his restraining order on March 28. The extension will run through April 12. 

"People are shocked by what is going on with the Court System. I was elected for many reasons, but a principal one was LAW AND ORDER, a big part of which is QUICKLY removing a vast Criminal Network of individuals, who came into our Country through the Crooked Joe Biden Open Borders Policy! These are dangerous and violent people, who kill, maim and, in many other ways, harm the people of our Country," Trump wrote on the social media platform. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

"The Voters want them OUT, and said so in Record Numbers. If it was up to District Judge Boasberg and other Radical Left Judges, nobody would be removed, the President wouldn’t be allowed to do his job, and people’s lives would be devastated all throughout our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!," he continued. 

Boasberg came under additional fire after he was randomly assigned to preside over a lawsuit involving the Trump administration's leaked Signal chat. 

After Boasberg was assigned to the case, Trump again took to Truth Social and accused Boasberg of "grabbing the 'Trump Cases' all to himself."

Davis also took to social media, writing, "Judge Jeb Boasberg is lighting on fire his legitimacy over an unnecessary, lawless, and dangerous pissing match with the President Jeb will lose. 

"Let’s hope the Chief Justice doesn’t light the entire federal judiciary’s legitimacy on fire by siding with his personal buddy Jeb," Davis wrote. 

At the start of the March 27 hearing, Boasberg emphasized that he was randomly assigned to the case through a docket computer system.

"That's how it works, and that's how all cases continue to be assigned in this court," Boasberg said during the hearing. 

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House, the Supreme Court, and the D.C. District Court for additional comment.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch, Emma Colton and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report. 

House Republicans to go to war with ‘rogue judges’ blocking Trump’s agenda: Here’s their plan

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

House Republicans are going all out this week to signal their support for the Trump administration amid multiple legal standoffs over White House policy.

A bill to limit U.S. district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions sailed through the House Rules Committee – the last gatekeeper for bills before a chamber-wide vote – in a party-line vote Monday evening, as expected.

On Tuesday morning, meanwhile, two high-profile panels on the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing at 10 a.m. ET on "judicial overreach and constitutional limits on the federal courts."

"Clearly, our members are as angered as President Trump about some of these rogue judges," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., the No. 2 House Republican, told Fox News Digital in a brief interview. "So we're doing a number of things."

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

The hearing will be held by the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and its subcommittee on courts, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Notably, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is expected to testify, as is a woman described as a victim of criminal activity perpetrated by the terrorist organization Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado.

Her appearance is likely linked to the ongoing legal showdown between the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after he issued an emergency 14-day pause on the White House’s deportation flights of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador.

"We share the president's concern that you've got some judges that have overstepped their boundaries," Scalise said. "I mean, you have a plane flying with hardened criminals ... and Judge Boasberg orders the plane to turn around in mid-flight … and bring hardened criminals back to America who were already here illegally. That's clearly judicial activism and a judge trying to become the executive. That's not his role."

Issa is also spearheading the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA Act) to get a House-wide vote this week, which would limit the ability of Boasberg and other district court judges from issuing rulings that affect Trump policies across the country, beyond their direct jurisdiction.

That legislation is likely to pass with little if any Republican dissent. Two people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital this month that Capitol Hill aides were told Trump "likes" the bill.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., the No. 3 House Republican, also made clear leadership is united behind this week’s strategy.

"Judges cannot act as pseudo-legislators to advance their political agenda; that’s not how our government works," Emmer told Fox News Digital exclusively in a written statement. "I’m grateful for Chairman Jordan and Congressman Issa’s leadership in House Republicans’ efforts to ensure impartiality on the bench."

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

But it’s clear there’s an appetite among Republican judiciary hawks and conservatives to go further.

Scalise would not go into specifics but vowed, "Everything's being looked at, and all options are on the table."

Democrats are vowing to push back, with Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, accusing Trump of using judges as "scapegoats" for his policy setbacks.

"This week's efforts to distract from Trump’s serial violations of the Spending Clause, the separation of powers, the Birthright Citizenship Clause, Equal Protection, the First Amendment freedom of speech, Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment right to counsel will include a House hearing made for Trump’s viewing pleasure and a vote on a Republican bill to ban nationwide injunctions," Raskin told Fox News Digital.

"As my colleagues embark on this embarrassing diversion, Judiciary Democrats will remind them at every turn: it's not the courts' fault that Trump keeps losing these cases. No amount of finger pointing will shift responsibility from this rogue president who keeps deliberately trashing the Constitution and violating the rights and freedoms of the people of the United States."

There have been over a dozen injunctions levied against various Trump policies across the country, from birthright citizenship reform to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met privately with Republican judiciary committee members last week for what sources called a "brainstorming" session.

Ideas raised by lawmakers included a fast-tracked appeals process, wielding Congress’ spending power over the judiciary, and limiting the ability to "judge shop."

And some conservatives are eager to target specific judges they believe are abusing their power via the impeachment process, but House Republican leaders are wary of that route and believe it to be less effective than other legislative avenues.

Conservatives could still force Johnson’s hand by filing a "privileged" impeachment resolution, meaning the House would have to at least hold a procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital is not aware of any current plans to do so, and Johnson assured Republicans at their closed-door meeting last week that he was in contact with the White House every step of the way.

Trump’s GOP Senate allies are rolling out their own strategy to push back on activist judges in the coming days, with the Senate Judiciary Committee teeing up a similar hearing to the House’s Tuesday event.

How Mike Johnson and Jim Jordan could hit back at judges blocking Trump’s agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Congressional Republicans are looking at a variety of options to stand up against what they see as "activist judges" blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Many of those options will likely be discussed at the House Judiciary's hearing on the matter next week, which sources expect to be scheduled for April 1.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., huddled privately with Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon to coalesce lawmakers around a bill up for a vote next week that would limit federal district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.

One source familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital that Johnson suggested Republicans could look at other options as well, something conservatives are looking for. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital that the legislation was a "good start."

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

The No Rogue Rulings Act has support from both the White House and House GOP leadership. It’s expected to get a House-wide vote Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

Led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the legislation would force most district court judges to narrow most orders to the most relevant scope, therefore blocking them from pausing Trump’s policies across the U.S.

No Republican lawmaker has publicly expressed doubts about the bill, but conservatives have warned they want to see more from Congress on activist judges.

Both Johnson and top members of the House Judiciary Committee have floated using Congress’ power of the purse to rein in activist courts.

"We do have authority over the federal courts," Johnson said at his weekly press conference. "We do have power over funding, over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."

But Congress controls government spending through several different mechanisms. Lawmakers have the power to set annual appropriations levels, to rescind that funding via a rescission package, and even leverage funding outside of Congress' yearly appropriations via the budget reconciliation process.

"I think we need to look at… funding scenarios. Now, that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital last week – while stressing he was not "for or against" any specific scenario.

Several Republicans have introduced resolutions to impeach various federal judges for blocking Trump's agenda, but there appears to be little appetite within the House GOP to pursue that lane.

Johnson signaled he was against the move during a closed-door meeting with Republicans on Tuesday morning, noting just 15 federal judges have been impeached in U.S. history.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"There was some innuendo there that, you know, impeachment has been reserved for judges with high crimes and misdemeanors, not because you disagree with his decisions," one House Republican said of Johnson's message. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Conservatives could attempt to force House GOP leaders to act by classifying their impeachment legislation as a "privileged resolution," meaning the House must hold at least a chamber-wide procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

But it's not clear that will be pursued, either. Two Republicans who filed such resolutions – Reps. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis. – said they did not have current plans to make their resolutions privileged.

It's not a totally dismissed option, however, as leaders, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, continue to insist nothing is off the table.

‘Futile exercise’: House GOP push to impeach judges blocking Trump fizzles out

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

There appears to be little appetite within the House GOP to pursue the impeachment of judges who have blocked President Donald Trump's agenda.

Republican lawmakers are instead coalescing around a bill led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit the ability of U.S. district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which is due for a House floor vote next week.

One House GOP lawmaker at Tuesday morning's closed-door Republican conference meeting said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled that Issa's bill would be a more effective message against who they view as "activist" judges.

"There was some innuendo there that, you know, impeachment has been reserved for judges with high crimes and misdemeanors, not because you disagree with his decisions," the lawmaker said of Johnson's message. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

House GOP Policy Conference Chair Kevin Hern, R-Okla., said, "I don't think so," when asked if impeachment was a realistic effort. "I think it's probably a mixed bag out there right now," he said, adding that Issa's bill was the best option he could see.

Johnson himself did not directly comment on impeachment when asked during his weekly press conference on Tuesday, but he said the House Judiciary Committee was "looking at alternatives."

"One of the bills that I really like, that's already been through committee, was authored by Representative Darrell Issa. And that would limit the scope of federal injunctions," Johnson said. "It would be, in my view, a dramatic improvement on that."

Several conservatives have introduced resolutions to impeach various judges who have blocked Trump's agenda. 

One such effort that has garnered significant attention is a resolution by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, to impeach U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg is currently locked in a legal showdown with the Department of Justice over the Trump administration's deportation of suspected Tren De Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump previously called for Boasberg's impeachment but has said little on the specific issue since then. 

He has been adamant that Republicans should take on activist judges, however, and Fox News Digital was told last week that he was in favor of Issa's bill.

Conservatives could attempt to force House GOP leaders to act by classifying their impeachment legislation as a "privileged resolution," meaning the House must hold at least a chamber-wide procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

Gill told Fox News Digital on Tuesday morning that he had no current plans to make his resolution privileged, and he was supportive of Johnson and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, in handling the matter.

"I don't think we should take anything off the table. But right now, we're working with leadership. Johnson's doing a great job, and so is [Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas] and Jim Jordan on the Judiciary Committee," Gill said.

Support for his resolution has continued to grow, however. Three Republicans signed on to formally support Gill's push on Monday.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., who has introduced his own impeachment resolution, told Fox News Digital, "I think we should hold impeachment regardless of what the Senate does or doesn't do…we should do the people's work, which is impeach those bastards."

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

However, even people who said they would back impeachment are skeptical it will pass.

"It's kind of a futile exercise, because we don't have the votes in the Senate [to remove a judge]," a conservative House GOP lawmaker said Monday night. "It's more of a ‘Hey, stay in your lane, you’re not the president.' And I think if anything, let's put some pressure on the Supreme Court to take up one of these injunctions."

That conservative added that they would "absolutely" vote for impeachment if it came to the floor.

Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Ariz., who co-signed Gill's resolution, told Fox News Digital on Monday night that he would support both impeachment and Issa's bill moving to the House floor, but he was skeptical of the former succeeding.

"I think impeachment obviously is unlikely because of the Senate…but it signals that, you know, these judges are out of control and not following the law," Hamadeh explained. "I think it's the smart approach to do both right now, but it seems like the solution, [the No Rogue Rulings Act], that's likely to get broad support."

Additionally, with House Republicans' razor-thin majority, it is not clear that an impeachment resolution would even succeed.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We shouldn't lower the standard for impeachment, but we should – ‘we’ meaning Congress – should provide a remedy for district court judges who totally overreach," Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said.

Another House Republican who declined to be named said they were "totally opposed" to impeachment.

"That's what the appeals process is for," they said.

The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing early next week on activist judges, and that's expected to be followed by a House-wide vote on Issa's bill.

Can Congress defund federal courts with key Trump budget process?

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

As Republicans look for ways to rein in federal judges issuing countless orders to halt the Trump administration's action on immigration in particular, a number of potential avenues for doing so are being considered. 

However, the use of a key budget process that lowers the Senate's threshold to 51 votes to defund certain courts could face significant obstacles.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, House Freedom Caucus policy chair and chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital he isn't "for or against" any specific approach to addressing the countrywide injunctions that are throwing a wrench into President Donald Trump's priorities.

CHUCK SCHUMER FACING 'UPHILL FIGHT' AMID LEADERSHIP DOUBTS: 'MATTER OF WHEN, NOT IF'

"We ought to look at [impeachment], we ought to look at jurisdiction-stripping, we ought to look at every option that needs to be addressed about judges that are actively taking steps to try to undermine the presidency," he said.

The Republican added, "I think there are pros and cons of those approaches. I think we need to look at … funding scenarios. Now that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate."

The budget reconciliation process lowers the threshold for Senate passage from 60 votes to 51 out of 100, allowing the party in power to more easily advance its agenda with no opposition party support. However, the provisions must relate to budgetary and other fiscal matters. The House of Representatives already has a simple majority threshold.

The process is being relied on heavily by Republicans, who have a trifecta in Washington, in order to push through Trump agenda items.

BATTLE OF THE CHAMBERS: HOUSE AND SENATE TENSIONS BOIL OVER AS TRUMP BUDGET HANGS IN LIMBO

In the months since Trump took office, his aggressive pace has been somewhat hampered by federal judges across the country issuing numerous orders to halt immigration, waste-cutting and anti-diversity, equity and inclusion actions. 

This has prompted Republicans to call for action against what they consider abusive actions by lower-tier federal judges.  

"I don’t think defunding is a viable option," said Andy McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and a Fox News contributor. 

"The chief justice would be angry that the district courts were understaffed, and Trump wouldn’t get away with later trying to add the positions back so that he could fill them," he continued.

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo called potentially defunding the courts that have been causing problems for the administration "a terrible idea."

"It would make no difference anyway; the cases challenging Trump’s executive orders would still be challenged in the courts that exist," he explained. 

This was echoed by former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, who said, "I don’t think defunding an already overworked judicial system would be right or effective."

BIDEN ADMIN'S 'VAST CENSORSHIP ENTERPRISE' WITH HELP OF NGOS SLATED FOR KEY HEARING, LAWMAKER SAYS

Because of the specific guidelines for what can be included in reconciliation bills, legal experts seem to be in agreement that defunding courts wouldn't meet the requirements. 

One such expert told Fox News Digital that not only does the provision need to have a federal fiscal impact, the policy effect cannot outweigh that impact. 

They further noted that the Senate's parliamentarian would be the one to make a judgment on this. 

Trusty said "the solution to judicial activism" is either the appellate courts finding ways to stop the injunctions on appeal or by direct orders, or "Congress develops a nimble response and passes legislation to clarify their intent to let the executive branch act without judicial tethers on various issues."

"The better option would be to explore ways to limit the jurisdiction of the lower courts or to fast-track appeals when they try to issue nationwide injunctions," McCarthy said.

CONGRESS EXPANDED THE EXECUTIVE – ONLY FOR TRUMP TO QUASH MUCH OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

As for potentially impeaching federal judges, which has been floated by Trump himself, Trusty said it "should still be viewed as a prosecution substitute for office holders who have committed treason or high crimes and misdemeanors; in other words, serious crimes."

"Bad judgment and wrong-headed decisions are not crimes," he noted. 

Neither Trump's White House nor Republican leadership in Congress have indicated plans to pursue the issue through the reconciliation process.

Lawmakers have acknowledged the problem, though, and the House is set to take up legislation to address the judges' actions this week.