Republicans on Capitol Hill are planning ways to push back at the federal judiciary over allegations that activist judges are unfairly targeting the Trump administration. But GOP members are divided about what to do, and their efforts to block action by the courts face significant political and legal hurdles.
President Trump's efforts to remake the shape and size of the federal government using Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and his use of a war-era statute to deport a group of Venezuelans have been reviewed by the courts.
Some GOP lawmakers have filed articles of impeachment to remove judges and others are pushing legislation to bar district judges from issuing national injunctions following public pressure on social media from Trump and Musk to impeach or punish judges.
Democrats dismiss the effort as purely political and legally unsound since the series of court rulings GOP lawmakers are fighting come down to a a disagreement about the law, not high crimes or corruption on the part of judges.
Impeachment effort divides GOP
Texas Republican Rep. Brandon Gill argued U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg abused his power and has filed a resolution to impeach him. Boasberg questioned the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cited the law when it flew over 100 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador. President Trump also called for Boasberg's removal. The administration is appealing that decision arguing the individuals were members of Tren de Aragua, a gang deemed a terrorist organization.
Gill says 19 others have co-sponsored his resolution and he maintained the judge was stepping on the president's authority by "usurping his powers as Commander in chief to conduct our foreign policy and to repel alien enemies."
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., dismissed the GOP effort, saying "Threatening judges with impeachment or retribution for upholding their oaths of office and doing their jobs under the Constitution is an act of outlaw tyranny, not constitutional government."
Several House GOP sources admit they don't have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who would preside over any impeachment, told reporters "everything is on the table" and said he briefed President Trump this weekend about his plans to act.
Jordan is expected to convene a hearing next Tuesday. Jordan said 15 national injunctions have been issued in the last month in response to Trump administration actions.
"The country instinctively knows that there's been this aggressive push against the president for policies he campaigned on and he was elected to implement," Jordan said. "That's a problem."
But even if the GOP-led House could pass an impeachment resolution convicting and removing a judge requires a supermajority in the Senate and it's unlikely Republicans would get any support from Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., pointed out that the appeals process, not impeachment was the proper route to fight back against rulings, saying on Monday "at the end of the day, there is a process and there's an appeals process. And, you know, I suspect that's ultimately how this will get handled."
The Trump Justice department has already appealed the ruling by Judge Boasberg.
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the impeachment push by some House Republicans "an unmitigated waste of time." He said floor time in the Senate is "the coin of the realm" and those pushing impeachment will be disappointed when not a single judge will be impeached because they won't have 67 votes to remove them. "I'm not here to make a point," Tillis said, "we're here to make a difference."
Gill, pressed about the reality of the Senate not having the votes to convict even if the House did impeach Boasberg told reporters "What we can do in the House is separate from that and I think just getting an impeachment bill through the House would send a pretty clear message to rogue activist judges."
Congress has rarely exercised its authority to remove federal officials, including judges. According to the House historian's office, 15 federal judges were impeached but just eight have been convicted and removed by the Senate.
Legislation to limit rulings by district judges to get House vote
While Jordan and the Senate Judiciary panel explore hearings, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is making plans for a House vote next week on legislation that would bar district judges from issuing national injunctions.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., sponsored the legislation and says it's about addressing what he called "a growing trend" of district court judges' decisions having broad impact nationally. He argued it was about striking a balance and restricting the scope of rulings, saying "it goes back to the very creation of district courts. You know, we don't need a Supreme Court if 700 judges can each do what the Supreme Court does."
Issa said his bill was one step Congress could take immediately.
"Impeachment is a tool best used rarely," he said. "Well, legislation that defines the role of district court judges is appropriate at any time. That's what we've done since the creation of district court courts, which were created by Congress."
Johnson maintained that the Trump administration is facing what he called an "unusual" response from the courts and he endorsed Issa's bill. "It is a dangerous trend and it violates equal justice under law. That critical principle, it violates our system itself. It violates separation of powers. When a judge thinks that they can enjoin something that a president is doing, that the American people voted for, that is not what the founders intended."
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley is pushing legislation similar to Issa's and says he remembers some Democrats complaining about national injunctions when some of President Biden's actions were going through the courts. He argues that there is a systemic issue and said that he believes district judges don't currently have the power to issue broad decisions that apply nationally.
"I think we ought to just make it clear, if you're a district court, you can bind the parties who are in front of you or the parties who are in your district. but you cannot bind people outside your purview. Only the Supreme Court can do that," Hawley said.
Another option Republicans in Congress are considering limiting or redirecting the amount of money they approve for federal courts through the appropriations process. But they are unlikely to find Democratic support for any effort that amounts to defunding the judiciary.
Hawley noted that President Thomas Jefferson feuded with the judiciary during his tenure but he said that instead of reducing judges he wants the GOP Senate to fill existing vacancies on the federal bench, "I'd like to fill those with Republican judges as opposed to eliminate spots."
Copyright 2025 NPR
