WASHINGTON — House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., faces mounting pressure from President Donald Trump and some of his allies in Congress to impeach judges who are blocking his agenda.
But legislation introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., could provide Johnson with an off-ramp, allowing his members to voice their support for Trump on the issue while avoiding politically perilous impeachment votes that are all but doomed to fail.
Issa’s bill, the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” would bar district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions, the sort of rulings that have hampered Trump’s fully enacting his plans on issues from deportation to federal agency cuts two months into the new administration. Johnson, a former constitutional attorney, threw his support behind the bill over the weekend.
“We have a major malfunction in our federal judiciary, and practically every week another judge casts aside the tradition of restraint from the bench and opts to be the Trump resistance in robes,” Issa, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, told NBC News on Monday.
“Our bill is the constitutional solution to a national problem, and that’s why it’s on a glide path to the House floor and to the Senate next,” he added.
Even as some hard-line conservatives in the House introduce articles of impeachment against certain judges — most notably U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who halted Trump’s using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants — it’s unlikely such resolutions could win enough Republican support to reach majorities in the House. In addition, 67 votes would be needed for convictions in the Senate, where Republicans have a 53-47 majority.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, said Monday on Fox News that his committee will hold a hearing next week focused on Boasberg and that Issa’s bill is a “good piece of legislation.”
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., who controls the floor schedule, said Monday that the chamber would vote on it next week.
In an appearance Sunday on Fox News, Johnson appeared to throw cold water on the idea of impeaching judges, instead pointing to the appeals process as a way to fight back against rulings he disagreed with.
“I do think the line is being crossed right now,” said Johnson, a former lawyer who litigated religious liberty cases. Recalling his experience, he said: “I never walked out of those courtrooms thinking that I could impeach those judges. I just got as quickly as I could to the appellate court to get them overturned.”
“But something’s happening right now,” he continued, pointing to the number of Trump’s policies that had been blocked by federal injunctions. “Something’s amiss. I think we’ve got to address it.”
Asked about the possibility of pursuing impeachment of judges Monday at the Capitol, Johnson told reporters that “everything is on the table” but added that “impeachment is an extraordinary measure” and that Republicans are looking at “all the alternatives.”
Other senior House Republicans also aren’t in a rush to impeach judges who’ve ruled against Trump. Rep. Roger Williams, of Texas, the chair of the Small Business Committee, said Monday he has been entirely focused on Trump’s decision to have the Small Business Administration take over the Education Department’s student loan portfolio.
“I do think the judge is overstepping. So we’ll see what happens,” Williams said of Boasberg.
Other Republicans, including moderate Rep. Don Bacon, of Nebraska, said they oppose impeaching judges because of their decisions.
“I don’t like that,” Bacon told NBC News. “Unless you do something illegal, or we’ve impeached judges for bribes and doing things like that, but not because somebody’s trying to follow their sense of the Constitution. If you don’t like it, appeal it. That’s been our tradition since 1789.”
And Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., a former chair of two House committees, suggested that impeaching judges could come back to bite Republicans when Democrats are in control of the House in the future.
“The thing I ask my colleagues in the House is, maybe we’re not happy with how certain judges are ruling now, but you set a standard that will apply for years or decades to come. How do you make sure that you don’t create retribution towards conservative judges in the future?” Lucas asked in an interview.
He said he is open to Issa’s bill but not enthusiastic about it.
“I’m not an attorney, but my understanding of the Constitution is that — after the Supreme Court — we create all the lower courts and we create the procedural stuff,” Lucas said. “I think his bill is within its legal scope, but that’s a big move, too.”
Republicans control 218 seats to Democrats’ 213 in the House, meaning Johnson can afford only two GOP defections on any vote. It explains why Republicans don’t believe impeaching judges — which would require simple-majority votes — could pass the House.
But if the House somehow did manage to impeach a judge, it would automatically trigger an impeachment trial in the Senate. That could eat up valuable floor time at a critical moment when Republicans in both chambers are trying to push forward on a package to advance Trump’s legislative agenda.
On Monday, Boasberg denied the government’s request to lift his hold on deportations under the Enemy Aliens Act of 1798, arguing that the Venezuelan nationals should be given a chance to challenge allegations that they are members of a gang. Boasberg’s decision has been appealed to a federal appeals court, which heard arguments Monday.
Boasberg’s initial ruling prompted freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, last week to file articles of impeachment against Boasberg, the chief judge of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who in the past has been appointed by both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
“Activist judges know that even if their rulings get overturned on appeal, the process could take months or years, burning away valuable time from Trump’s Presidency, stopping him from executing on the mandate voters gave him,” Gill said Friday on X. “That’s why the Supreme Court must step in and Congress must act NOW.”
