House Speaker Mike Johnson agreed with a contingent of hardliners in the House GOP who want to impeach so-called activist judges for standing in the way of President Trump’s agenda, but warned that lawmakers first have to line up the votes.
Earlier this year, Mr. Trump called for impeaching federal judges who impede his agenda. A handful of House Republicans took up the cause, either introducing or threatening articles of impeachment against judges who issued injunctions against various executive actions.
However, none of those have reached the House floor. House Republican leaders instead looked at other avenues to check federal judges’ power.
Mr. Johnson, Louisiana Republican, said Tuesday that “impeachments are never off the table if it’s merited,” but warned of the reality that Republicans command slim majorities in the House and Senate.
“There may be some that I feel merit that, but you’ve got to get the votes for that, and it’s a very high burden, and frankly, the bar is high crimes and misdemeanors,” he said at his weekly press conference at the Capitol.
“By the way, even if we could get an impeachment article through the House on a federal judge, it’s unlikely that they’d be tried and convicted in the Senate on that,” Mr. Johnson said.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the ability of district court judges to limit his authority through injunctions, specifically on his executive order to end birthright citizenship. The court is slated to hold oral arguments on the matter on May 15.
And congressional Republicans have opted to deal with the matter through legislation. Mr. Johnson said that, short of impeachment, the House GOP has done “everything within our power” to solve the issue.
House Republicans passed the No Rogue Rulings Act that would curtail the power of a single judge to issue nationwide injunctions. The bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, would prevent U.S. district courts from providing injunctive relief, except to limit the actions of a party to the case or those they are representing.
It also specifies that cases against the executive branch that are brought by two or more states located in different circuits shall be referred to a three-judge panel and that the judges should be selected at random, instead of the circuit’s chief judge.
The three-judge panel can issue an injunction if “the interest of justice, the risk of irreparable harm to non-parties, and the preservation of the constitutional separation of powers,” according to the bill.
The Senate has yet to take up the bill, and whether it could clear the upper chamber’s 60-vote threshold to survive remains doubtful.
“It’s very reasonable legislation,” Mr. Johnson said. “We passed it to the House, we sent it to the Senate with every expectation that they should be able to take that up, and I certainly hope they can.”
