Category: fox-news/politics/judiciary

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.

SCOOP: Mike Johnson meeting House Judiciary Committee as GOP mulls response to activist judges blocking Trump

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is expected to privately meet with Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, two people familiar with the plans told Fox News Digital.

The timing or reason for the meeting is not immediately clear, but it comes as Republicans in Congress map out how to respond to what they see as "activist" judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda.

The committee is currently scheduled to mark up several pieces of legislation, unrelated to the judicial standoff, on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. ET. Johnson is scheduled to hold his weekly press conference at that time.

It comes as the Trump administration has faced more than a dozen injunctions from various district court judges across the country on a range of policy decisions.

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

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., announced on X Monday that lawmakers would be voting on a bill next week led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit U.S. district court judges' ability to hand down nationwide injunctions.

Fox News Digital was told last week that Trump himself expressed interest in the bill.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is expected to hold a hearing on the issue of activist judges early next week.

Several conservative lawmakers have also introduced or threatened resolutions to impeach specific judges blocking Trump's agenda.

Johnson has been known to meet with various factions of the House GOP when trying to push key pieces of legislation, particularly when there are differing opinions on what to do, to ensure all lawmakers who want to express a viewpoint are heard.

But House GOP leaders have also been privately wary of getting behind any of the calls for impeachment, worried it would not be the most effective approach.

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

Trump, however, has previously signaled interest in impeaching U.S. district court Judge James Boasberg after he issued an emergency order blocking the administration's deportation of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach Boasberg for "abuse of power" last week. The legislation gained three new supporters on Monday and now has 19 total co-sponsors.

Some House Republicans expressed hesitation at the idea when asked by Fox News Digital on Monday night, however.

"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.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., contended that the impeachment resolutions sent a necessary message. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The reason I sponsored Gill's efforts is just – if we don't say anything, the judges are going to be like, ‘Oh, we can do whatever we want.’ So they need to know that we are watching and that there's a group of us that, if that's what it takes, we would support that," Stutzman said.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said Issa's bill was a "start" but said the House Freedom Caucus would have discussions about whether the group wanted to push for impeachment.

Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson's office and the House Judiciary Committee for comment but did not immediately hear back.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to how Congress may try to discipline judges who rule against Trump

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Congressional Republicans are searching for a way to discipline or rein in federal judges, whom they believe have exceeded their authority. 

House Republicans will have to wrestle with a push by some conservatives to impeach judges who have ruled against President Donald Trump. 

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, has drafted an article of impeachment for Judge James Boasberg over his suspension of some deportations.

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IMPEACHAPlOOZA IS HERE TO STAY 

Some conservatives are pushing impeachment for Boasberg and several other judges they believe exceeded their authority. 

The House Republican leadership does not want to deal with impeachment, and it’s unclear if the House would ever have the votes to impeach. Conservatives could try to go over the heads of the GOP brass and put impeachment on the floor by making the resolution privileged. However, Republican leaders could try to euthanize that effort by moving to send the impeachment articles to committee. Thus, the vote is on the motion to send the articles to committee, not on impeachment. 

BUSH DOJ LAWYER WARNS TRUMP ADMIN AGAINST ‘TERRIBLE MISTAKE’ IN JUDICIAL STANDOFF

That said, the administration appears to prefer a remedy offered by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Issa’s bill would limit the scope of rulings by these judges. 

Moreover, it’s unclear that the House would ever have the votes to impeach, and even if they did, a Senate trial would end without conviction. It takes 67 votes to convict in an impeachment trial. 

Reporter’s Notebook: Impeachapalooza is here to stay

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

And you thought they just wanted to impeach former President Joe Biden.

Maybe former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas – whom the House did impeach last year.

How about former FBI Director Christopher Wray? Former Attorney General Merrick Garland? Former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin?

That is so 2023.

INJUNCTION LIFTED ON TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS SLASHING FEDERAL DEI SUPPORT

This is 2025. The Biden administration is long gone.

But the concept of impeachment hasn’t waned for some House Republicans. And even for President Donald Trump.

D.C. Circuit Court Judge James Boasberg ordered a two-week halt to the deportation of Venezuelan gang members after Trump leaned on the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798 to remove them from the U.S.

The president didn’t mention Boasberg by name, but he whipsawed the jurist on social media.

"This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" wrote President Trump. He characterized Boasberg as a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."

Elon Musk has pushed for the removal of judges whose rulings run afoul of the administration. But freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment for Boasberg, accusing him of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Gill argues that Boasberg "has done exactly what the Supreme Court commanded not be done." Gill’s resolution asserts that Boasberg "illegitimately tried to substitute his own judgment for the elected President of the United States."

There are a total of four federal judges who could face articles of impeachment in the House.

It’s unclear whether this effort could pick up steam. If conservatives wanted to go to the mat, they could try to make their impeachment resolutions "privileged" in the House. That would compel the House to consider such a proposal immediately. It also would go over the head of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., filed articles of impeachment for Biden two years ago. After inaction, Boebert attempted to fast-track her plan, circumventing the GOP leadership – to say nothing of hearings and preparation of the articles in committee. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., argued that impeachment was "too serious" to sidestep the rigorous steps usually undertaken. So, Republican leaders intervened.

Once Boebert’s resolution was up, they moved to euthanize the plan by sending it to the Homeland Security Committee. The full House actually voted on the motion to dispatch the resolution to committee – not on impeachment. Otherwise, the House would have voted on impeaching Mr. Biden on the spot – committee investigation or not.

The motion to send the resolution to committee actually inoculated a lot of Republicans from political angst. They wanted to talk about impeaching Biden. But few actually wanted to impeach Biden.

Impeachment works the same with federal judges as it does with presidents or cabinet secretaries. The House has only impeached four federal judges in the past 36 years. The most recent impeachments were for the late Judge Thomas Porteous and former Judge Samuel Kent – both in 2009.

After the House impeached Porteous, the Senate conducted a short trial and convicted him. That removed Porteous from the bench. The House also impeached Kent, but he resigned before the Senate could conduct a trial to remove him.

Porteous was accused of accepting cash and bribes from lawyers arguing cases before him. A court convicted and sentenced Kent to nearly three years in jail for sexually abusing female employees. The Senate removed neither based on their judicial rulings.

But here is what to watch:

How much pressure will Trump and Musk apply on Johnson to advance the articles of impeachment?

Johnson may have to finesse this. But Gill and other conservatives could attempt to go over the head of the Speaker, making their resolution "privileged." That is what Boebert did, and it would force the House to tangle with the impeachment articles in some fashion. Republican leaders could move to table the resolution or try to send it to committee. Thus, the actual vote would not be on impeachment but on an issue two steps removed from that.

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts took the extraordinary step of publishing a statement about impeachment threats.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," said Roberts this week.

Fox is told House GOP leaders are anxious about what to expect from conservative lawmakers, stoked by the possibility of impeachment. GOP leaders simply don’t want to burn valuable time on this issue.

But they’d like to talk about it.

Trump supports a bill crafted by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., titled the "No Rogue Rulings Act." The bill limits the scope of rulings by U.S. district judges, preventing their decisions from carrying nationwide weight.

"The President wants this," two White House sources told Fox News' Liz Elkind.

Issa characterized impeachment as a rather "dull tool" that should be restricted to actual criminality or malfeasance in office – such as the cases with Kent and Porteous. House Republican leaders could also shop the Issa bill to conservatives itching for impeachment as an alternative. However, even if the House were to OK Issa’s legislation, it would likely die in the Senate. It would need 60 votes to clear a filibuster.

By the same token, if the House were to impeach Boasberg or any other judge, pressure mounts on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to hold an impeachment trial. That could chew up valuable floor time as the Senate tries to wrestle with the complex "budget reconciliation" process to avoid a filibuster on President Trump’s plan to cut taxes and reduce the size of government.

Moreover, a Senate impeachment trial certainly would not result in removal. It takes 67 votes to convict a federal judge and extract them from the bench. That is not going to happen.

But the controversy over rulings of federal judges and President Trump’s executive orders won’t dissipate any time soon. Depending on your metric, federal courts have issued around 50 injunctions to halt various administrative moves by the President. There are anywhere from 130 to 140 total legal challenges floating about the court system.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In 2023 and 2024, lots of conservatives chattered actively about the possibility of impeaching then-President Biden. Some saw it as retribution for the dual impeachments of President Trump. Others knew they could fundraise off impeachment. Maybe score some plaudits on social media. Still, others saw it as good politics in their district. They were happy to talk about impeachment for Biden but not necessarily vote for it. That’s why members looked at low-hanging fruit like Mayorkas. They considered targeting Lloyd Austin and the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Some of the loudest voices in the Republican Party will now clamor for the impeachment of "activist judges." That is what they say publicly, but public conversations are very different from private ones. And that is why "impeachapalooza" is here to stay in the 119th Congress.

House GOP leaders privately wary of push to impeach federal judges blocking Trump agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

House GOP leaders have little appetite to launch a full-scale impeachment process against judges who have been blocking President Donald Trump's agenda, sources said Thursday.

Three people – two senior House GOP aides and one source familiar with leadership's discussions – told Fox News Digital that House leadership does not see impeachment as the most effective way to hold accountable those they view as "activist" judges.

Republican leaders are still looking into it, however, after Trump himself called for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg over the weekend. Boasberg issued an emergency 14-day injunction on the Trump administration's deportation of suspected Tren De Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

But impeachment would largely be a symbolic gesture, even if such a move passed the House.

INJUNCTION LIFTED ON TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS SLASHING FEDERAL DEI SUPPORT

"I don't think we know if we have the votes, and it's another intense whipping process for something that won't move at all in the Senate," one senior House GOP aide said. "I think our focus is to do something that is easier to get votes for and could actually get all the Republicans in the Senate."

A second senior House GOP aide was more blunt with Fox News Digital: "It's likelier that President Trump will acquire Canada as our 51st state than the U.S. House of Representatives impeaching federal judges."

"This is an impossible task," the second senior aide said.

A third source familiar with House GOP leadership discussions said, "The impeachment route isn't anyone's favorite on this."

It's being pushed by a faction of conservatives primarily in the House Freedom Caucus, however – and they appear buoyed by Trump's support for impeaching Boasberg.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach Boasberg for abuse of power. 

Gill told Fox News Digital earlier this week that Boasberg was a "rogue" judge who was "overstepping" his authority.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who previously told Fox News Digital that all options were on the table, suggested in multiple media interviews this week that the committee could hold a hearing on the matter.

Reps. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., Eli Crane, R-Ariz., and Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., are pushing resolutions to impeach other federal judges who blocked Trump policies as well.

However, with just 53 Republican senators, any impeachment resolution would need the help of Democrats to reach the two-thirds threshold required for removal after a Senate trial – which is highly unlikely to happen. 

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, said all options should be available to Republicans. 

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

"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," Roy told Fox News Digital in a brief interview on Thursday.

He also pointed out that an impeachment by the House is in itself a punishment, although symbolic – though Roy noted he was not "for or against" any one specific path right now.

It's worth noting that former Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas remains the second-ever Cabinet secretary impeached, a permanent note on his legacy even though the then-Democrat-controlled Senate quickly dismissed a trial.

But getting the Mayorkas impeachment resolution passed through the House was a messy political affair, when the GOP was dealing with a similarly slim margin. It took two House-wide votes to pass that measure, with Republicans falling one vote short on the first attempt and then narrowly passing the resolution with three GOP defections on the second.

GOP leaders have had more success with critical votes this year, however, with Trump in the White House pressing holdouts on key legislation.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is not ruling anything out right now, at least publicly. A spokesperson for Johnson told Fox News Digital that he would look at all options available to take on "activist judges."

"Activist judges with political agendas pose a significant threat to the rule of law, equal justice, and the separation of powers. The speaker looks forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as they review all available options under the Constitution to address this urgent matter," the spokesperson said.

Two other sources told Fox News Digital that another option Trump showed support for was a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to block federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.

Biden’s former spokesman slams Trump and GOP ‘colluding to impeach’ judges

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: A top former spokesperson for former President Joe Biden is blasting President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress for proposing potential judicial impeachments, as the administration hits an array of court-imposed obstacles in implementing its agenda. 

Former White House spokesperson Andrew Bates now advises a group known as Unlikely Allies, which says it is working to create "cross-partisan support for the needs and interests of all Americans."

"Radical, corrupt attacks on judges are putting our Constitution and the freedom of every single American in danger from government overreach," Bates told Fox News Digital on the group's behalf. "For the first time in history, our president and members of his party in Congress are colluding to impeach any federal judge who stops the most powerful person in the world from breaking the law."

DEM SENATOR ON SCHUMER FUTURE: 'IMPORTANT' TO KNOW 'WHEN IT'S TIME TO GO'

"The President has also called for making dissent illegal, which would trample the 1st Amendment and threaten the fundamental right of any American to disagree with his agenda — whether it’s cutting taxes for the rich or raising the prices he falsely promised to lower," he continued. 

According to the group, Unlikely Allies "is made up of everyday citizens, families, communities, and organizations who are committed to solving our toughest problems, together."

SCOOP: BILL PREVENTING ACTIVIST JUDGES FROM BLOCKING TRUMP'S AGENDA BACKED BY WHITE HOUSE

"Driven by the values that unite us, our goal is to create unified, cross-partisan support for the needs and interests of all Americans. This isn’t about left or right, Republican or Democrat — it’s about American values and holding our government accountable," a description of the organization read. 

The White House responded to Bates' statement, with Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly telling Fox News Digital, "Biden communications alum Andrew Bates has no credibility after lying to the world about Biden’s cognitive decline. Just like these judges, Bates is a left-wing activist masquerading as a nonpartisan as he works to destroy the separation of powers and subvert the will of the American people." 

The dispute comes as federal judges across the country continue to impose restrictions on Trump actions until further review and legal determinations. 

Recently, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg granted an emergency order to temporarily halt the administration's deportation flights of illegal immigrants.

SPEAKER JOHNSON SAYS GOP LOOKING AT 'ALL AVAILABLE OPTIONS' TO ADDRESS 'ACTIVIST JUDGES' OPPOSING TRUMP

The judge granted the order to review the 1798 wartime-era Alien Enemies Act being invoked by the administration in order to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals and alleged members of the violent gang Tren de Aragua.

This only further angered the president, who appeared to call for Boasberg's impeachment. "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!!!" he said on Truth Social.

DEM SENATOR REFUSES TO ADDRESS RELATIONSHIP WITH FOUNDER OF SOROS-FUNDED 'PROPAGANDA' NEWS NETWORK

Republicans in general have appeared to scrutinize the ability of federal district judges to make blanket nationwide orders in recent days. 

"Federal judges aren’t there to replace presidential policy choices," wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on X. "Nor is it their job to neuter presidents by delaying presidential decisions." 

"Their job is to resolve disputes about what the law says," he continued. 

Lee also said he is working on a bill to address the issue. 

In the House, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has a measure that would prevent federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Multiple sources told Fox News Digital that Trump himself has shown interest in Issa's bill. Top White House aides shared as much with senior Capitol Hill staff this week, explaining that "the president wants this."