Court order halting deportation flights ‘unconstitutionally impedes’ on executive branch, Trump allies argue

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: America First Legal (AFL) and Texas GOP Rep. Brandon Gill are supporting President Donald Trump's invocation of a 1798 wartime law, arguing a previous order blocking Trump's deportation plans "unconstitutionally impedes" his presidential authority. 

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg came under fire this past week after blocking the Trump administration on Saturday from invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), for 14 days. 

In his order, Boasberg ordered any flights in the air to return to U.S. soil immediately.

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

"This law was passed by Congress in 1798," America First Legal Senior Counsel James Rogers said in a statement released. "Until now — for more than 226 years — courts have universally held that they do not have the power to interfere with the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to decide when to invoke the Act and expel aliens under its terms."

In its amicus filing, AFL states that Gill "believes that Tren de Aragua poses a clear and present danger to the United States," saying he supports the president's efforts to "neutralize this threat quickly and efficiently."

"He sees the President’s use of the Enemy Aliens Act as vital to ensuring the safety of his constituents," the filing reads. 

SCOOP: IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP TREN DE ARAGUA DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

AFL argues that the AEA "confers on the President the power to invoke the Act’s provisions in cases of invasion or predatory incursion," saying such authority is not reviewable by the courts. 

The filing notes the president's commander in chief post, as vested by the Constitution, saying that the AEA "statutorily grants the President wartime powers," and courts cannot appropriately "second-guess" the president's decisions and discretion over the AEA's implementation.

"At best, the Plaintiffs seek to use the federal courts to deliver a political victory," the filing reads. "There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs are here illegally. Enjoining implementation of the TdA Proclamation unconstitutionally impedes the President’s ability to respond to national security threats."

On Thursday, Boasberg said the administration had missed a previously-set court deadline to disclose information on the deportation flights to El Salvador. Boasberg noted in an order issued that day that the government "again evaded its obligations" to submit the requested information even after he had allowed them to submit it under seal. 

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

The filing they submitted hours after the deadline failed to answer his questions.

Boasberg said the court had received a six-paragraph declaration from a regional ICE office director in Harlingen, Texas, that stated Cabinet secretaries are "actively considering whether to invoke the state secrets [act] privileges over the other facts requested by the Court’s order."

"This is woefully insufficient," Boasberg said. 

Following Boasberg's Saturday emergency order siding with the plaintiffs, Democracy Forward and the ACLU, Fox News Digital was first to learn that Gill had filed impeachment articles against Boasberg, saying at the time, "This is another example of a rogue judge overstepping his…authority."

"For the past several weeks, we've seen several rogue activist judges try to impede the president from exercising, not only the mandate voters gave him, but his democratic and constitutional authority to keep the American people safe," Gill told Fox News Digital. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gill's resolution accuses Boasberg of abusing his power in levying an emergency pause on the Trump administration's deportation plans. 

The resolution text says the order "jeopardizes the safety of the nation, represents an abuse of judicial power, and is detrimental to the orderly functioning of the judiciary. Using the powers of his office, Chief Judge Boasberg has attempted to seize power from the Executive Branch and interfere with the will of the American people."

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch and Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. 

It’s now an impeachable offense to rule against the president

Posted on by Lisa Needham

Republicans are dying to impeach lower court judges who have ruled against the Trump administration, an unprecedented attack on the judiciary. Meanwhile, over at the judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts is utterly unable to meet the moment. 

There’s a tiny problem with the Republican impeachment plan. Much like the president, federal judges can only be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” It’s right there in Article II of the Constitution. But Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas, cares nothing for your silly constitution and wants to impeach Judge James Boasberg for the high crimes and misdemeanors of issuing a ruling the administration doesn’t like. 

Gill is not a paragon of legislative accomplishment. Before coming to Congress this year, Gill was mostly known as an election denier and the son-in-law of fellow election denier Dinesh D’Souza. Gill has desperately tried to distinguish himself in the crowded field of GOP legislators willing to do unhinged things to get Trump’s attention. Hence, he introduced a bill that would remove Founding Father Benjamin Franklin from the $100 bill and replace it with President Donald Trump. 

Too bad that Rep. Joe Wilson, famous for yelling “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during the State of the Union, already introduced a measure to create a new $250 bill and slap Trump’s face on that. 

Just as he was not the first legislator who suggested debasing U.S. currency, Gill also wasn’t the first House member to call for impeachment of a lower court judge. That honor goes to Rep. Eli Crane of Arizona, who introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Paul Engelmayer nearly a month ago because Engelmayer blocked the Department of Government Efficiency teens from burrowing into Treasury Department records. 

But Gill did win the race to demand Judge James Boasberg be removed from the bench because Boasberg blocked—or tried to block—the administration from summarily deporting over 200 Venezuelans who Trump alleged are members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Boasberg’s order to stop those deportations was met with outright defiance by the administration, which did it anyway. 

While Gill’s articles of impeachment say that Boasberg committed high crimes and misdemeanors, Gill’s appearance on Newsmax on Wednesday gave away the game. When asked what crime the judge committed that would fit under “high crimes and misdemeanors,” Gill came up with, “This is for usurping the executive’s authority.”

NEWSMAX: For impeachment you have to have "high crimes and misdemeanors." What crime did the judge commit? REP. BRANDON GILL: This is for usurping the executive's authority

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2025-03-19T15:46:46.502Z

Even if it were true, which is definitely not the case, it’s unclear how that would count as a high crime or misdemeanor for which impeachment is appropriate. First, intruding upon the executive's authority, however that might irritate Trump, is not actually a crime. The remedy for Boasberg exceeding the bounds of his authority is that the administration gets to appeal to a higher court and argue about it there. 

By the time Gill drafted his impeachment articles, he had reworked his theory into a claim that Boasberg had “willfully use[d] his judicial position to advance political gain” and “attempted to seize power from the Executive Branch and interfere with the will of the American people.” Gill then said Boasberg had created a “created a constitutional crisis.”

The House has rarely impeached judges, but usually, it does so when a judge is convicted of an actual crime, made false statements, shown improper favoritism, was drunk on the bench, or abused the power to hold someone in contempt. None of that happened here. 

All that happened is that Boasberg made a ruling in which he interpreted the Constitution and United States law to determine whether the administration should be temporarily blocked from deporting people. This was based on what can charitably be called a novel legal theory about the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives the president wide latitude to deport non-citizens during times of war.  

Prison guards transfer deportees from the U.S., alleged to be Venezuelan gang members, to the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 16, 2025.

Trump says he has the sole authority to designate non-state actors, like Venezuelan gangs, as enemy aliens who have invaded, and we are therefore at war. Then, he can deport any migrant who he believes falls in that category without any due process. 

Judge Boasberg’s ruling, despite being spun by the right as massive overreach, was appropriately cautious. All Boasberg did was issue a 14-day temporary restraining order, freezing deportations for just two weeks while the parties continued to litigate. The notion such a minimal restriction on the administration’s actions constitutes a judicial overreach so outrageous is absurd. 

While Gill is doing the president’s dirty work over in the House, Trump is whipping the MAGA faithful into howling for Boasberg’s removal. Meanwhile, Elon Musk is bribing, er, donating to GOP legislators who back impeachment, just to remind them who really runs the show. 

All of this adds up to a pretty comprehensive assault on the integrity and authority of the judiciary. However, the man who has been head of the judiciary for nearly 20 years, Chief Justice John Roberts, could not muster even a few strong words about it. Here is the entirety of Roberts’ weak sauce statement:

"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."

This is a nothingburger. It doesn’t specify who is yelling for impeachment. It says nothing about how attacks on individual judges are beyond the pale. It doesn’t address the administration’s belief it is not bound by lower court orders.

But the news media always grades Roberts on a curve, eager to pretend he is evenhanded rather than a staunch partisan who invented complete immunity for Trump. So they are calling this statement so short that it could fit in a tweet, a “rebuke” of Trump and an “extraordinary display of conflict” between the two branches. 

Trump certainly didn’t see it as a rebuke, gloating on Fox that, “Well, he didn’t mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn’t mention my name.” 

This is not the behavior of someone who is chastened, who intends to respect the federal courts, or who will stop calling for the impeachment of judges. 

Roberts has a front-row seat to the administration’s destruction of the constitutional order. He has the unique power to call this out in a meaningful way. Whether he’s unable to do so because he’s feckless or because he has no problem with the administration’s approach doesn’t matter. Either way, he’s helping deepen the real constitutional crisis we’re facing. 

Campaign Action

Judges v Trump: Here are the key court battles halting the White House agenda

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The recent wave of preliminary injunctions from federal judges has stymied President Donald Trump's early agenda in his second White House term, prompting new questions as to how far the administration might go if it opts to challenge these court orders. 

Federal judges across the country have blocked Trump's ban on transgender persons serving in the U.S. military, ordered the reinstatement of core functions of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and halted Elon Musk's government efficiency organization, DOGE, from oversight and access to government agencies, among other things. They've also temporarily halted deportations, or attempted to, so judges can consider the relevant laws.

Combined, the wave of rulings has been met with outrage from Trump administration officials, some of whom said they plan to appeal the rulings to the Supreme Court, if needed. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has used her podium to rail against "radical left-wing judges," who she has alleged are acting with a political agenda to block Trump's executive orders.

"These judicial activists want to unilaterally stop President Trump from deporting foreign terrorists, hiring and firing executive branch employees, and determining the readiness of our troops," Leavitt said on X, expanding on remarks made Wednesday at a press briefing.

LAWSUIT TRACKER: NEW RESISTANCE BATTLING TRUMP'S SECOND TERM THROUGH ONSLAUGHT OF LAWSUITS TAKING AIM AT EOS

"They MUST be reined in," she added.

Some of Trump's supporters in Congress have threatened judges who block the president's agenda with impeachment, while his critics worry the president's attacks on the judiciary will collapse the constitutional system, bringing to the fore an impassioned debate over the separation of powers in the Constitution. 

Here's a rundown of where things stand. 

U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, ruled on Tuesday that DOGE's efforts to dismantle USAID "on an accelerated basis" likely violated the U.S. Constitution "in multiple ways" and ordered the partial restoration of the agency's functions, including reinstatement of personnel access to email and payment systems.

Chuang's preliminary injunction is believed to be the first to directly invoke Musk himself. It said Musk could interact with USAID employees only after being granted "express authorization" from an agency official, and it blocked DOGE from engaging in any further work at USAID.

Hours later, U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction barring the Pentagon from enforcing Trump's order on transgender persons serving in the military.

Reyes, the first openly gay member of the court, wrote in a scathing 79-page ruling that the Trump administration failed to demonstrate that transgender service members would hinder military readiness, relying on what she described as "pure conjecture" to attempt to justify the policy and thus causing undue harm to thousands of current U.S. service members.  

SHELTERS, JESUS, AND MISS PAC-MAN: US JUDGE GRILLS DOJ OVER TRANS POLICY IN DIZZYING LINE OF QUESTIONING

Both rulings are almost certain to be challenged by the Trump administration. In fact, Reyes was so confident that the Justice Department would file an emergency appeal that she delayed her ruling from taking force until Friday to allow the Trump administration time to file for an emergency stay.

Reyes wasn't wrong. Senior administration officials vowed to challenge the wave of court rulings, which they said are an attempt by the courts to unduly infringe on presidential powers.

"We are appealing this decision, and we will win," Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on social media.

"District court judges have now decided they are in command of the Armed Forces…is there no end to this madness?" White House policy adviser Stephen Miller said later in a post on X. 

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

Several other high-profile cases are playing out in real time that could test the fraught relationship between the courts and the executive branch, and next steps remain deeply uncertain.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg warned the Trump administration on Wednesday that it could face consequences for violating his court order temporarily blocking it from invoking a little-known wartime law to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals from U.S. soil, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua, for 14 days. 

Boasberg handed down the temporary restraining order Saturday evening, around the time that the Trump administration proceeded to deport hundreds of migrants, including Venezuelan nationals subject to the Alien Enemies Act, to El Salvador. He also ordered in a bench ruling shortly after that any planes carrying these individuals return to the U.S. 

But at least one plane with migrants deported by the law in question touched down later that evening in El Salvador.

"Oopsie, too late," El Salvador's president said in a post on X.

In the days since, government lawyers citing national security protections 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.

The White House has repeatedly asserted that lower court judges like Boasberg should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what it argues is a lawful agenda, though the judges in question have disagreed that the president's actions all follow the law.

"A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil," Leavitt told Fox News.

Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, said in an interview on "Fox & Friends" this week: "We are not stopping."

"I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming," Homan said, adding, "Another fight. Another fight every day."

SCOTUS RULES ON NEARLY $2 BILLION IN FROZEN USAID PAYMENTS

The administration's appeals, which are all almost guaranteed, may have a better chance of success than previous cases that reached appellate courts, including one in which the Supreme Court ruled against the president.

There are two types of near-term relief that federal judges can offer plaintiffs before convening both parties to the court for a full case on the merits: a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, or a TRO. 

A TRO immediately blocks an action for 14 days to allow more time for consideration. But it's a difficult test for plaintiffs to satisfy: they must prove that the order in question would pose immediate and "irreparable harm"– an especially burdensome level of proof, especially if it hinges on an action or order that has not yet come into force. 

The outcomes, as a result, are very narrow in scope. One could look to the TRO request granted by U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali earlier this month, which required the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in owed money for previously completed USAID projects. 

Since it did not deal with current contracts or ongoing payments, the Supreme Court, which upheld Ali's ruling, 5-4, had little room to intervene.

The request for a preliminary injunction, however, is a bit more in depth. Successful plaintiffs must demonstrate to the court four things in seeking the ruling: First, that they are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim when it is heard later on; that the balance of equities tips in their favor; that the injunction is considered within the sphere of public interest; and finally, that they are "likely" to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of court action.

This wider level of discretion granted to the district courts in a preliminary injunction ruling invites much more scrutiny, and more room for the government to appeal the ruling to higher courts should they see fit. 

It's a strategy both legal analysts and even Trump himself dangled as a likely possibility as they look to enforce some of their most sweeping policy actions. 

Trump suggested this week that Boasberg, tasked with overseeing the escalating deportation fight, be impeached, describing him in a post on Truth Social as a "crooked" judge and someone who, unlike himself, was not elected president.

"He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!" Trump said.

The post earned the rebuke of Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that it broke with 200 years of established law. And on Thursday, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, James Blair, appeared to punt the issue to Congress.

He told Politico in an interview that Trump’s remarks were shining "a big old spotlight" on what it views as a partisan decision, but noted impeaching a judge would be up to Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who he said would ultimately "figure out what can be passed or not" in Congress.

"That’s the speaker’s job. And I won’t speak for what the speaker’s opinion of that is," he said. "I think the thing that is important right now is the president is highlighting a critical issue."

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."

SCOOP: Bill preventing activist judges from blocking Trump’s agenda backed by White House

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump has shown interest in a House GOP bill that would block federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, two sources familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital.

Top White House aides communicated to senior Capitol Hill staff this week that "the president wants this," the sources said. They said the White House felt that time was of the essence in the matter and that Trump wanted Congress to move swiftly.

It comes after various U.S. district court judges issued more than a dozen nationwide orders at least temporarily blocking Trump's executive orders.

The bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., if it passed Congress and was signed into law, would bar such judges in most cases from blocking Trump policies on a national scale.

INJUNCTION LIFTED ON TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDERS SLASHING FEDERAL DEI SUPPORT

Issa's office did not directly confirm whether the exchange occurred but told Fox News Digital, "President Trump knows we need a national solution to this major malfunction in the federal judiciary, and we think we have the momentum to get this done."

A White House official told Fox News Digital they would not get ahead of the president on legislative matters.

However, the idea has appeared to gain traction in the upper levels of the White House. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller complained on X twice Thursday about federal district judges having the ability to affect policies for the entire country, though he did not mention Issa's bill specifically.

"It takes 5 Supreme Court justices to issue a ruling that affects the whole nation. Yet lone District Court judges assume the authority to unilaterally dictate the policies of the entire executive branch of government," Miller posted. 

TRUMP ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

He posted again later, writing, "Under what theory of the constitution does a single Marxist judge in San Francisco have the same executive power as the Commander-in-Chief elected by the whole nation to lead the executive branch? No such theory exists. It is merely naked judicial tyranny."

Issa's legislation reads, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court."

The bill advanced through the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month. Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told CNN on Wednesday, "We think that's good. We passed it through the committee. We'll try to look to pass it on the House floor and move it through the process."

Jordan told Fox News Digital last month he thought Issa's bill "makes sense," and the committee would "try to move fairly quick on that bill." Fox News Digital reached out to the House Judiciary Committee for comment on Trump's backing of Issa's bill but did not hear back by press time.

However, it comes amid some disagreements among congressional Republicans about how to heed Trump's call to deal with "activist" judges.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, recently introduced a resolution to impeach U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after he ordered a 14-day emergency stop to Trump's plans to deport suspected Tren De Aragua gang members to El Salvador.

Gill argued that Boasberg abused his power in doing so, and told Fox News Digital this week that he hoped the resolution would go through the regular committee process – something Jordan seemed open to.

TRUMP SCORES BIG LEGAL WIN AGAINST PULITZER PRIZE BOARD MEMBERS AS LAWSUIT MOVES TO DISCOVERY

Jordan told multiple outlets he would potentially hold hearings on Gill's resolution, which is a traditional step in the impeachment inquiry process.

Trump posted on Truth Social earlier this week that he wanted Boasberg impeached as well.

However, multiple sources told Fox News Digital that House GOP leaders are more wary of the impeachment route, given the virtual guarantee that such a move would not get the necessary Democrats to pass the Senate.

"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 the White House is trying to find something easier to do."

House Speaker Mike Johnson's office told Fox News Digital that he was looking at all available options when reached for comment on House Republicans' path forward on Thursday morning.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"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," a spokesperson for Johnson, R-La., said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, did not immediately comment on Issa's bill but a spokesperson told Fox News Digital, "The recent surge of sweeping decisions by district judges merits serious scrutiny. The Senate Judiciary Committee will be closely examining this topic in a hearing and exploring potential legislative solutions in the weeks ahead." 

Fox News Digital's Andrew Mark Miller contributed to this report.

Judges fear for their safety as GOP melts down over legal losing streak

Posted on by Oliver Willis

Federal judges are receiving death threats and have expressed serious concerns about their safety, following attacks on the judiciary by President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, conservative activists, and right-wing media.

The climate is so hostile, even right-wing judges are being targeted.

For instance, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sister received an emailed threat that a pipe bomb had been placed in her mailbox. The email turned out to be a hoax. The threat came after the conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration, who was attempting to withhold payments from the U.S. Agency for International Development for work that had already been completed.

Federal judges are receiving pizza deliveries at their homes as part of an intimidation campaign, to let the judges know that their private home addresses are known. A bulletin from the U.S. Marshals Service noted, “We assess that these incidents are related to high-profile cases that have received extensive media coverage and public interest.”

Judge John C. Coughenour, who ruled against Trump’s attempt to abolish birthright citizenship, told The New York Times he had been targeted for a “swatting” attack—a false police report of a crime at his residence that led to a police response. Coughenour also said he received a mailbox bomb threat, which was a hoax.

The Trump administration is on a losing streak in multiple federal courts, as judges again and again say the actions of Trump, the Department of Government Efficiency, and figures like GOP financier Elon Musk are breaking the law or overstepping their legal authority. An analysis by the Washington Post determined that since Trump was sworn in for his second term, he has lost a case every four days.

Trump has gone on the attack instead of accepting his losses like other leaders.

“If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” Trump wrote Thursday on Truth Social.

 Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

Trump has also promoted conservative influencers who have targeted judges ruling against the administration.

He isn’t alone. House Republicans have begun the process to impeach judges for insufficient devotion to Trump, while Musk has said it is “necessary” to remove those officials. Conservative media like Fox News has amplified the crusade, with attacks on the judiciary in service of Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who leads the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc and has been a reliable pro-Trump vote, nonetheless expressed concerns about the right’s actions (without directly naming Trump).

“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 wrote in a statement.

Trump’s team has been ignoring rulings and defying orders at a pace that the courts are struggling to keep up with, and now those judges are in the conservative movement’s crosshairs.

In all likelihood, the situation will continue to escalate.

Campaign Action

 

Speaker Johnson says GOP looking at ‘all available options’ to address ‘activist judges’ opposing Trump

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Republicans in the lower chamber are reviewing tools available to take on "activist judges" as President Donald Trump sees resistance from the judiciary in implementing his agenda. 

"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," a spokesperson for Johnson's office told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

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

News that the House is considering possible actions to rein in the federal judiciary comes after the latest Trump restriction, wherein U.S. District Judge James Boasberg granted an emergency order to temporarily halt the administration's deportation flights of illegal immigrants.

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.

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO PAY ‘UNLAWFULLY’ RESTRICTED USAID FUNDS

Trump appeared to call for Boasberg's impeachment after the order. "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 remarked in a post to Truth Social. 

HERE'S WHY DOZENS OF LAWSUITS SEEKING TO QUASH TRUMP'S EARLY ACTIONS AS PRESIDENT ARE FAILING

In a separate post, Trump said, "If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!"

JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN FROM TARGETING DEMOCRATIC LAW FIRM AFTER ATTORNEYS WARN OF FIRM'S DEMISE

Republicans have continued to criticize the flow of temporary restraining orders against Trump's administration from judges across the country. 

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and Homeland Security advisor, wrote on X on Thursday, "Under what theory of the Constitution does a single Marxist judge in San Francisco have the same executive power as the Commander-in-Chief elected by the whole nation to lead the executive branch? No such theory exists. It is merely naked judicial tyranny."

As the House explores options to address the issue, the Senate is also expected to investigate. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the subject in the coming weeks. 

House Republicans rally around ‘idiotic’ plan to punish judges

Posted on by Emily Singer

Egged on by wannabe dictator Donald Trump, House Republicans are pushing GOP leadership to let them embark on impeachment proceedings against federal judges who dare to rule against their Dear Leader—a time-consuming and destined-to-fail effort that harms the rule of law and could even wound the Republican Party in elections moving forward.

Multiple Republican lawmakers have filed articles of impeachment against four federal judges who recently ruled against the Trump administration.

“Congress has the constitutional power to impeach rogue activist judges—and we intend to use it,” Republican Rep. Brendan Gill of Texas, who filed articles of impeachment against a federal judge who ordered the Trump administration to turn around planes that were deporting alleged Venezuelan immigrants to a gulag in El Salvador, wrote in a post on X.

House Republicans are pushing for the impeachments to move forward even as Politico reported that some GOP lawmakers view the effort to be “idiotic.”

“You don’t impeach judges who make decisions you disagree with, because that happens all the time,” Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas told Politico in early March. “What you do is you appeal, and if you’re right, then you’re going to win on appeal.”

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

Even Chief Justice John Roberts warned that impeachment is not the way to handle disagreements with judicial decisions.

“We are going to keep the impeachments coming,” Republican Rep. Andy Ogles Tennessee wrote in a post on X. Ogles himself filed articles of impeachment against a judge who ordered the Trump administration to restore websites it had taken down to comply with Trump's executive order targeting “gender ideology extremism.”

But complicating things for Republican leadership is that Trump blessed the impeachment efforts on Tuesday, saying that the judge who tried to block his effort to deport immigrants without due process is a "Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama."

“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 a deranged Truth Social post.

Co-President Elon Musk, who has threatened to fund primary challenges to Republicans who don’t do what Trump says, also wants judicial impeachments.

“This is a judicial coup. We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people,” Musk wrote in a post on X on Tuesday after another federal judge ruled against the Trump administration, this time on its attempted ban of transgender troops.

Given that GOP leaders acquiesce to all of Trump's wants, no matter how immoral or unconstitutional, his demand puts them in a difficult place of having to choose what’s right or to make their Dear Leader happy. 

“Everything is on the table,” Russell Dye, a spokesperson for House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, told Politico. An unnamed spokesperson to House Speaker Mike Johnson also told Politico that judges “with political agendas pose a significant threat” and that Johnson "looks forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as they review all available options under the Constitution to address this urgent matter.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson

But as aides for Johnson publicly said all options are on the table, top GOP aides privately admitted the impeachment route is stupid and will take up time the House needs to pass the rest of Trump’s destructive and unpopular agenda.

“It’s never going to happen,” an unnamed senior Republican aide told Politico. “There aren’t the votes.”

Plus, forcing Republicans to vote on impeachment could be politically damaging for the GOP.

Polling from February—when Republicans began crowing about impeaching judges who ruled against Trump—showed that voters want Trump to follow court orders.

"This court issue is a big loser for Trump," CNN's Harry Enten wrote in a post on X, referring to a Washington Post poll from February. "The belief that Trump must follow court orders is more popular than Mother Teresa: 84% of all adults, 92% of Dems, 82% of Indies & 79% of the GOP."

Other polls have similar findings, including an NBC News survey released Wednesday. It found that a plurality of voters (43%) believe the president and executive branch have too much power, as opposed to the 28% who believe the Supreme Court and judicial branch have too much.

The cherry on top of this for GOP leaders is that their members would be taking potentially damaging votes on impeachment for nothing. The charges would be disposed of in the Senate, where there is no way on earth that two-thirds of the chamber would vote to convict and remove judges. Republicans have just 53 votes there. To impeach a judge, they’d need 14 Democrats to also join in. 

But never put it past Republicans to do stupid things in the name of subservience to Trump.  

Thank you to the Daily Kos community who continues to fight so hard with Daily Kos. Your reader support means everything. We will continue to have you covered and keep you informed, so please donate just $3 to help support the work we do.