Could President Trump’s agenda lead to a Constitutional crisis?
President Donald Trump’s pushback against the judiciary could change the how executive power functions.
WASHINGTON – Addressing complaints about the courts from President Donald Trump, House Republicans approved legislation on Wednesday to restrict federal judges from issuing opinions and directives that have immediate national consequences.
The measure passed 218-214 along mostly partisan lines and still faces an uphill climb to pass the Senate. It is the latest move by the Republican-led Congress to restrict the federal judiciary, which they argue is unfairly targeting Trump and his policies.
The bill from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., would stop federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions – like the one issued by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to temporarily halt the administration’s efforts to deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act – and create a new process by which multi-state cases against the president would be reviewed by a random three-judge panel.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overruled Boasberg’s injunction and allowed the administration to continue deportations of certain immigrants.
“We are here today because a major malfunction in the federal judiciary has been recognized by both Republicans and Democrats,” Issa said at a hearing earlier this month. “Activist district court judges usurping their Article III power and imposing on the nation injunctions beyond the scope of what the United States Congress, under statute, has given federal judges.”
Issa and other Republicans have also complained about a practice known as “judge shopping” − which is employed by both political parties − in which plaintiffs pick courts through which to file their cases based on the ideological preferences of the judges.
Federal workers, unions, troops and others have brought more than 150 lawsuits in federal courts against the president, Elon Musk and the rest of the administration. In at least 67 cases through March 28, the litigants made emergency requests to judges to temporarily block Trump’s policies with restraining orders or injunctions, according to a review by Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University. Judges temporarily blocked policies at least 46 times, Vladeck found.
Issa’s bill reflects longstanding frustration among Republicans over the litany of lawsuits against Trump administration policies.
Democrats have argued that there is no partisan conspiracy to stop Trump’s actions and that the rulings are a reflection of his willingness to violate the law.
They note that judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents have issued injunctions against dozens of Trump’s actions.
“Not because these are radical left rogue judges, but because the judges, regardless of who appointed them, are doing their jobs,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., during a House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month. “If the number of decisions striking down Trump illegality is unprecedented today, it’s only because of the sheer number of illegal acts committed in the first 100 days is unprecedented.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., asserted late last month that Congress has broad authority over the federal courts.
“We do have authority over the federal courts,” Johnson said at a press conference. “We can eliminate an entire district court, we have power of funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures and Congress is going to act.”
However, the bill has little chance of advancing in the Senate, where Republicans control the chamber 53-47. That’s enough to win a simple majority vote, but not enough to bypass the filibuster, which requires a 60-vote threshold. Democrats in Congress have opposed the bill.
Bart Jansen contributed.