▶ 0:23:15Just want to make Let's get
▶ 0:24:08comes. The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone here today for a joint hearing on judicial overreach in the federal courts. Before I recognize myself, I'd ask unanimous consent that members of the full committee but not of the subcommittees, Mr. Mosquitz and Mr. Biggs, be allowed to sit in and participate in today's hearing. Without objection, uh so ordered.
▶ 0:24:38And as a point of personal privilege uh before I make my opening statement, Speaker Gingrich, I've been here now, this is my 25th year on the Hill and the first time I've had the pleasure of having you as a witness. Uh I will I will cherish that as much as I uh cherish the time I once carried your bag off of an airplane in uh in San Diego and found out you were the speaker, but you were also a regular guy.
▶ 0:25:06So with that, I'll now recognize myself for an statement. We are here today because a major malfunction in the federal judiciary has been recognized by both Republicans and Democrats.
▶ 0:25:23activist district court judges usurping themselves with their article 3 power and imposing on the nation injunctions beyond the scope of what the United States Congress under statute has given federal judges.
▶ 0:25:40These rogue judge rulings are a new resistance to the Trump administration and the only time in which judges in robes in this number have felt it necessary to participate in the political process rather than to participate in the article 3 powers given to them both by the constitution and by statute.
▶ 0:26:06President Trump was elected to assert many policies including the deportation of criminal aliens. He did he did so publicly and was elected by a majority of Americans and the vast majority of the electoral college. But he also did so in stark contrast to executive orders of the previous administration.
▶ 0:26:28Time and time again, rogue judges have asserted as though they were five of the nine members of the Supreme Court their authority when the president was doing nothing more than undoing a policy of his predecessor, one which they seemed to have no problem with in the previous administration. Let me be clear, it should never have come to this.
▶ 0:26:52It is within the Supreme Court's ability to rule appropriately that judges have exceeded their jurisdiction. Time and time again, the the High Court has ruled on the substance of the ruling rather than on the inappropriate nature of an injunction overly broad and affecting hundreds, thousands, or millions of people beyond the plaintiffs before that court.
▶ 0:27:22Just last night, a judge halted the administration's plan to end temporary protective status for about Venezuelans that uh Joe Biden welcomed into this country and gave temporary protective status to. Temporary seems not to be a word understood by the court.
▶ 0:27:46If President Biden could give protective status temporarily, how in fact could it not be the prerogative of the next president to undo that status? Nowhere in that protective status was there an act of Congress or a recognition that temporary equals permanent. This is but the latest outrage coming from lower or at least I might say the lowest courts.
▶ 0:28:12I have said from the start that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should support this legislation. After all, it was the Biden administration who opposed these universal injunctions and said they were illegitimate.
▶ 0:28:26In fact, legislation in the last Congress authored by a Democrat is substantially similar to the one that we offer today and would have the same To quote the previous administration's solicitor general, literally the woman who who spoke on behalf of the administration before the court, she said, "The government must prevail in every suit to keep its policy in force, but plaintiffs can derail a federal program nationwide
▶ 0:28:57with just one lower court victory." End quote. Those words by Elizabeth Prolangar uh President Biden's own solicitor general were from October 2024. In other words, after almost the entire four years of the Biden administration, they still believed and believed till the end that this was wrong. And yet, we will probably hear today no support on the other side of the aisle.
▶ 0:29:26In fact, this is not new, but it is not old. For 180 years of our nation, there were no such injunctions. Only beginning in 1963 did district courts begin to in relatively small amounts believe that they could do these without multiple uh plaintiffs from multiple circuits.
▶ 0:29:51From 2001 to 2023, the number grew to 96, but an incredible 64 of those occurred during only four years, the four years of President Trump. Meaning that more than half of all injunctions in this millennium, this century, were against President Trump in his first four years.
▶ 0:30:18That used to seem like a lot, but during President Trump's first nine weeks in office this year, he has already faced more nationwide injunctions than President Joe Biden did in his entire four years. The federal judiciary isn't interpreting the law. It is imp it is impeding the presidency.
▶ 0:30:38It is in fact not co-equal, but holding itself to be Marberry uh Madison, there's no question at all that the br the third branch says it's the last word and we have accepted that for over 200 years. But that acceptance is for the Supreme Court making a final decision, not one of over 700 district and uh appellet judges.
▶ 0:31:08The reality is every judge is considering himself not to be an associate justice, not to even be the chief justice, but in fact to be a combination of the justice and the president of the United States. This demands that we take a make a change and make it quickly.
▶ 0:31:27When a judge believes that he can order a full plane of criminal aliens back to US soil, essentially saying that 200 years of a statute is to be overturned by his his quick order without knowing even who was on the airplane. And finally, demanding that President Trump spend $2 billion in a single weekend, and I repeat, a weekend.
▶ 0:31:55um and not tolerating any delay because that money was money that that judge believed should be spent even if it was reckless and illegal. The last one might be understandable because a judge might have misunderstood and thought that President Biden was still in the White House or that that $2 billion like the 188 billion that President Biden tried to forgive in student loans and then when thwarted by the
▶ 0:32:25United States Supreme Court found a workaround that he believed was legitimate and gave away another $8 billion in loan forgiveness. No question at all. We had a rogue in the White House for four years. Many today will talk about the current occupant of the White House. But in fact, most of the rulings that are being overturned are simply undoing rogue activities of the previous administration.
▶ 0:32:53The no rule rogues ruling act does not eliminate the ability of judges to make decisions. In fact, every decision made by a judge on behalf of a plaintiff would still go forward, but it would go forward only as to the plaintiff in front of him and not a nation as a whole determined by one judge, neither elected nor appointed to a position of sufficient power to speak on behalf of the entire nation.
▶ 0:33:22And with that, I would recognize the ranking member, Mr. Johnson, for his opening Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for your appearance today. Special shout out to uh former speaker N. Gingri uh from the great state of Georgia. Professor Gingrich, good to see you.
▶ 0:33:41Of the many troubling actions the Trump administration has taken in its first 71 days, among the most damaging are his dictatorial, and unprecedented use of presidential power to instill fear, intimidate, exact revenge against, and punish those who dare to stand up to him and hold him accountable to the laws of our nation.
▶ 0:34:12A climate of fear and trepidation has descended upon the nation. The people of America are more afraid today for our democracy and for their personal safety than ever in our lifetimes.
▶ 0:34:28College students have disappeared off the streets paramilitary style by plain closed maskedwearing individuals and held incognito for days before they are discovered thousands of miles away in some private for-profit ICE detention Why? For exercising their free speech first amendment rights.
▶ 0:34:55Universities, bastions of free thought, have been punished for having the wrong ideology by having their federal funding revoked. And major law firms that dared to have brought cases against King Trump have been targeted with blatantly unconstitutional executive orders that, if allowed to stand, would shut those law firms down.
▶ 0:35:20Unfortunately, mega law firms Paul Weiss and Scatteren Arps chose to settle with the king by pledging to represent pro bono only those persons and causes that the king approved of. Shame on them. Then there are other law firms that have stood up to King Trump and they have challenged his executive orders against them in court and they have won.
▶ 0:35:46Kudos to the lawyers at Perkins Coey Coington and Berling and Jenner and Block among others for standing up for themselves and for the rule of law and for our democracy. Although federal courts have consistently ruled against these unconstitutional executive orders of President Trump.
▶ 0:36:12The mere existence of these retaliatory executive orders should be chilling to all of us. There has been no semblance of due process or fairness in any of these cases. Trump acts first. He deports first. He revokes funding first. He blacklists law firms first and then questions anyone who challenges him later.
▶ 0:36:38Somehow, in spite of this, we are here today to talk about the quote overreach in quote of the federal courts, not the overreach of the executive branch official who is doing overreaching. Our Republican colleagues want us to believe that simply because the courts are exercising their article 3 power of equitable relief to temporarily halt some of Trump's most excessive executive actions.
▶ 0:37:09It is a sign of rot in our judicial system that it is somehow our courts and judges, not the president, who have gone rogue and overreaching. I disagree. But more importantly, so do the numbers.
▶ 0:37:26Since day one of his second term, Trump has attempted to rework our constitutional system of government through presidential fiat, issuing a record 107 executive orders in his first 71 days in office. As I mentioned, many of these executive orders are unlawful unconstitutional. and the president does not have the power to change the constitution through executive order even if his name is Donald Trump.
▶ 0:37:57Naturally, they have been challenged in court and of the over 150 cases filed against the Trump administration, judges have ruled against him 46 times. Of those 46, only 17 are nationwide injunctions.
▶ 0:38:15The cases are spread across district courts throughout the country and judges appointed by Democrat and Republican presidents have all ruled against Donald Trump. What we are seeing playing out in courts across the country today is the judicial system working exactly as it should. America's federal courts have been handed case after case challenging executive orders.
▶ 0:38:44standing on questionable legal footing. And yet, the proportionately small number of nationwide injunctions shows the restraint exhibited by the judges considering those cases. I don't know what Donald Trump thought would happen when the cases made their way to the judicial branch, but clearly he has had enough with losing in court.
▶ 0:39:09Instead of letting the rule of law play out, Trump and his allies here in Congress now have chosen to go on the attack. Trump and his cronies have called federal judges rogue and corrupt. A judge uh suggested uh it was suggested that a judge supports terrorists and they've called judicial rulings judicial coups.
▶ 0:39:39MAGA Republicans in Congress have called for judges to be impeached not because they committed a high crime or misdemeanor, but simply because they ruled against Trump. And far-right media personalities have attacked the judge's families, publicizing their personal information for millions of their riledup followers on social media. What I had just described is nothing less than a full-scale assault on our entire judicial system.
▶ 0:40:09And it is putting judges, their family, and their staff lives at risk. We don't agree on much on this committee, but we should be able to agree that this is wrong. And we should be able to agree to back away from language demonizing the judicial branch, no matter what political party we belong to.
▶ 0:40:34Today's hearing is not just about helping Donald Trump undermine the judicial branch, though. Well, let me say that this hearing is not just about helping Donald Trump undermine the judicial branch, though certainly it is about that. But Republicans on this committee are sending a message to anyone who dares to stand up to Donald Trump. If you step out of line, they will target you next.
▶ 0:41:02We cannot afford to to allow what Donald Trump is doing through retaliatory executive orders through targeting immigrants, through threatening lawyers, through vilifying judges to become the normal. Our constitution is being tested and throughout American history, it has stood up to attempts to weaken its protections.
▶ 0:41:26Americans across the country are watching and they know they didn't vote for Trump to destroy our democracy. They voted for Trump because he promised to lower the cost of living and Trump has betrayed their trust.
▶ 0:41:42Prices are going up and our economy is headed towards recession as co-president Musk threatens to take away people's social security, Medicare, SNAP benefits, and veterans care. Trump is doing nothing to deliver on the promises to the American people.
▶ 0:42:04I stand with my fellow Americans, with the federal judges who continue to bravely do their jobs in the face of criticism, and I yield back. I now recognize the chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution and limited government, Mr. Roy, for his opening statement. I want to thank the gentleman from California and my co-chairman on this hearing. It's an important hearing. I thank him for uh his work on this issue as well as his legislation addressing the matter. And I'd like to welcome uh the guests who are joining us here today.
▶ 0:42:34Appreciate your time. Obviously, particularly you, Mr. Speaker, and your great service to this country. Um and great to have your expertise here. We thank you. And I also want to give a shout out to uh Cindy Romero. Um I met Miss Romero last August uh in Aurora, Colorado, and I appreciate what she's going to be here to testify about today and her great service.
▶ 0:42:53So, um, with that, I would like to take a slightly different angle, uh, as the chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution than the direction that, uh, my friend from California took, uh, because I want to emphasize the judicial overreach we've witnessed over the last two months and nationwide injunctions more broadly that are undermining the constitutional structure our founders so uh, wisely envisioned. The nature of the executive branch was a primary point of contention at the constitutional convention.
▶ 0:43:21Some delegates favored a plural executive, thinking that this arrangement would better preserve liberty, but they were wrong, and our founders wisely resisted their calls. Instead, the Constitution lodges the executive power in a single president of the United States. Alexander Hamilton offered the classic defense of this arrangement in Federalist 70, emphasizing that a vigorous and energetic executive is necessary to defend our liberty from foreign threats.
▶ 0:43:48Hamilton rightly argued that unity in the executive was the essential ingredient in this formula. Only a single executive could act with the decision activity, secrecy, and dispatch necessary to adequately carry out the office. And on a note, um I have introduced legislation in the past. It's called the Article One Act to try to cabin in the executive branch when it's not necessarily working directly with Congress and am happy to work with my colleagues on other side of the aisle on these concepts.
▶ 0:44:15when we have these lingering emergencies in many cases these national emergencies that date back to the 1970s. There are times for the uh Congress and for the legislative branch to assert itself. But the president's authority is at its zenith when we're talking about his actions as commander-in-chief.
▶ 0:44:33Injunctions and temporary restraining orders halting presidential actions nationwide threaten the key feature of our constitutional architecture undermining the core premise of unity in the executive branch the unitary executive as we refer to it. Even the most strident proponents of a plural executive at the constitutional convention advocated for an executive council of three maybe five members.
▶ 0:44:54Today in practice we are governed by an executive council of 678 the nationally elected president and 677 district court judges each of whom retains a functional veto over executive actions through their power to issue nationwide injunctions. Scholars have long understood that a hostile judiciary or even a single hostile judge could abuse its power to issue nationwide injunctions to infringe upon the lawful authority of the president of the United States. Now that's not a partisan point.
▶ 0:45:24I've got a numerous examples of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have raised these concerns. The Biden administration solicitor General Elizabeth Prelliger told the Supreme Court as recently as 2024 that quote, "A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it." The district court violated that principle by issuing a nationwide injunction dot dot dot.
▶ 0:45:44In 2022, Solicister General Proliger asked the Supreme Court to address nationwide injunctions uh as permissible relief in United States versus Texas, arguing that district courts normally quote should only provide relief for the benefit of the prevailing challenger. What happened there was our Democratic colleagues started realizing that when Republicans went to district courts to get injunctions against their president, that suddenly they didn't like it so much. So, they were raising concerns. Justice Elena Kagan spoke out against nationwide injunctions by a single district judge in 22.
▶ 0:46:14quote uh the ability of a single judge to stop invitation of a policy across the country. She stated, "In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. Just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process." Former United States Rep Mandere Jones introduced the Injunction Reform Act in 2022. I could go through the quotes that he offered, but I won't. I can offer those for the record without objection.
▶ 0:46:44objection. So, in a letter to William Torren dated June 11th, 1815, Thomas Jefferson explained who decides constitutional questions. Certainly, there is not a word in the Constitution which has given judges that power, authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law more than to the executive or legislative branches. Meaning, we all have an obligation and a role to do that. Questions of property, of character, and of crime being obscribed to the judges through a definite course of legal proceedings. Laws involving such questions belong, of course, to them in the judiciary.
▶ 0:47:12And as they decide on them, ultimately and without appeal, they of course decide for themselves the constitutional validity of the law. In other words, our founders never intended the federal courts to have the ability to unilaterally decide constitutional questions as these judges are unelected and were never given the power to legislate from the bench. Treating the courts as the final authority on public policy on the final authority on public policy grants them more power than even Madison's rejected council of revision proposal at the constitutional convention.
▶ 0:47:43Indeed, it happened regularly during the first Trump administration as we've pointed out. Now in the second Trump Trump administration, it is on steroids. As of last week, district courts had issued no fewer than 17 nationwide injunctions against administrative actions with scores more temporary restraining orders or TTRO as we call them as barring the president from enacting the agenda upon which he was elected.
▶ 0:48:04Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 that even the Supreme Court would wield neither force nor will over politics, indicating he never envisioned the judiciary having the final say on every political decision or action. Now, these injunctions and TTRO have even infringed upon what the Supreme Court has described as conclusive and prelusive presidential powers, including core presidential authorities to conduct foreign affairs and repel invasions. Now, I have got numerous examples of what we've been dealing with.
▶ 0:48:32Just so people know, this is a 56-page summary that I've got of the 158, it might be 159 now because we're having to track them on a daily basis. lawsuits against the administration and against the president for carrying out uh the agenda upon which he was elected. 17 injunctions. I think there are great number more TTRO's and the cases we're talking about without going through all of them.
▶ 0:48:53Nationwide TTRO in joining the Trump administration from freezing foreign assistance funding enforcement order requiring the administration to pay approximately 2 billion within 36 hours. That's a judge singularly acting against the president's actions provisionally. Another one provisionally certifying a class in adjoining the Trump administration from deport deporting members of a foreign terrorist organization. A nationwide injunction adjoining the Trump administration from pausing, terminating, or amending any equity related grants or contracts, DEI.
▶ 0:49:22A nationwide injunction in joining the Trump administration from prohibiting federal funds from being spent to promote gender ideology. A nationwide TTRO in joining the Trump administration from prohibiting biological men from being housed in women's prisons. two injunctions regarding the administration from implementing an executive order considering transgender individuals in the military, birthright citizenship, issue after issue after issue that the administration is trying to act on according to the campaign upon which he ran. One in particular has earned the scrutiny it has received.
▶ 0:49:52Just two weeks ago, Judge Boseberg of the District Court of the District of Columbia ordered the administration to stop the deportation of members of Tren dear Aagua, a violent Venezuelan gang that has terrorized cities and towns across the country. At this table in this room, we heard testimony from Alexis Nungare, whose daughter Jocelyn was murdered by TDA in the suburbs of Houston. Right here, we heard her powerful testimony about what that gang has done to this country. We're going to hear from M.
▶ 0:50:21Romero today about what that gang did to her community in Aurora, Colorado. And here we have a single district judge who's asserting jurisdiction from the District of Columbia to tell the president of the United States that he cannot deport members of the violent TDA gang out of this country to keep our streets safe. That is not what is supposed to occur. Today's hearing will learn from constitutional scholars and real Americans about what is wrong with the current system is a good start.
▶ 0:50:46We should carefully study whether Congress should push back against judicial overreach using its constitutional power to structure and fund the courts. Our Constitution did not create a plural executive or judicial tyranny. Today, we're far too close to both. With that, I yield back. The gentleman yields back. We now recognize the subcommittee ranking member uh for her opening statements. Miss Scandlin. Thank you.
▶ 0:51:10Uh like the chairman of the subcommittee on the constitution, as ranking member, I too would like to address the constitutional concerns raised by this hearing. Our Republican colleagues have called this hearing today for one reason.
▶ 0:51:24Because this White House, this president continues to lose over and over again in court as people and groups from across the political spectrum challenge the barrage of unconstitutional and illegal executive actions taken by this White House in just the few first few weeks of this term. Because it doesn't matter if the judges were appointed by Bush or Biden or Obama or Reagan or by Trump himself.
▶ 0:51:52When the president attempts illegal or unconstitutional actions, United States judges guided by the letter of the law must rule against him. It's a confirmation of the total subservience of today's Republican party to this president that their response to multiple judicial rulings of executive overreach is a hearing entitled judicial overreach and constitutional limits on federal courts when we should be holding a hearing on presidential
▶ 0:52:22power grabs and constitutional limits on executive power. This is civics 101. The Constitution provides in article one that Congress writes the laws. In article two, the president administers the laws and in article three, the courts interpret the laws. Our Republican colleagues are concerned about the unprecedented number of successful lawsuits challenging this president's executive overreach.
▶ 0:52:50But it's not the actions of the courts in interpreting our Constitution and laws that are unprecedented. It's the scope and breadth of this president's executive orders that are unprecedented. It's this president's attempt to go it alone, to usurp the power of Congress and we the people, to rewrite the laws of this country and the constitution, and to reserve unto himself rather than the judiciary the right to interpret the laws and our constitution.
▶ 0:53:18The sheer volume of unconstitutional and illegal actions taken by this president in just the few first few weeks of his term has led some to wonder if the president fundamentally misunderstands the nature and terms of his article 2 powers. Specifically, when article 2 section 3 says that the president shall take care to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress, does this president think that the word execute means that he's supposed to kill laws rather than carry them out?
▶ 0:53:48Unfortunately, the underlying rationale for much of this action is a radical theory set forth in Project 2025 and elsewhere. It's one that would vest federal power in a unitary executive, sidelining two of the three co-equal branches of our government, Congress, and the judiciary. We're here because Republicans who control the House and Senate have thus far chosen to abandon their constitutional duty to constrain an outofcrol executive branch.
▶ 0:54:16If they don't see anything wrong with it, their constituents do. And more of our colleagues would know that if they actually showed up at town halls in their districts. Our constitution is built upon the rule of law that no one is above the law. And our legal system is built on the idea of judicial independence. In the past two months, we've seen our judicial system working as the founders intended.
▶ 0:54:38And as the Supreme Court ruled in Madison versus Marberry over 200 years ago, it's the job of our judiciary to declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional if they're in conflict with the Constitution. The federal judges who've ruled against President Trump's unlawful power grabs are simply interpreting the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress to protect the rights of the American people.
▶ 0:55:04To suggest otherwise is to substitute a theory of executive primacy that is completely at odds with our constitutional history and separation of powers. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could dismiss today's hearing as just political theory or theater, but the stakes are too high for the American people and their rights hang in the balance. While this administration has begun by attacking people it vilifies, including immigrants, students, or working people, no one should kill kid themselves.
▶ 0:55:33It's clear the rights of every American is are at stake. When the White House and some of our colleagues claim the right to deny due process to immigrants who they claim have broken a law, that's a sham. Because if you don't support the rights of immigrants to due process, then you don't support anyone's right to due process. Because without due process, the government can do whatever it wants to anyone, including citizens, and they aren't able to defend themselves. What's to def what's to stop ICE from saying that Mr.
▶ 0:56:03Roy or Mr. Jordan is a member of a violent gang and shipping them out of the country? Attacks on our courts, whether in the form of executive orders punishing law firms and lawyers that dare to stand up for the rule of law or hearings like this attempting to constrain the courts or tweets urging impeachment or violence against judges are part of a broader attack on the rule of law. Our Republican colleagues have shown that they're not concerned about civil rights in the rule of law.
▶ 0:56:32Their sole concern appears to be whether or not a federal judge has ruled against this administration. They've gone so far as to call for impeaching judges who rule against this White House, eliminating courts altogether or advocating to cut off funding for the court system. The fact is, if the president wants to end his legal wos, he can simply follow the Constitution and our laws. Because if a president issues illegal executive orders, the courts are duty bound to block them.
▶ 0:56:59But rather than accepting that reality, our Republican colleagues would rather hand the president the keys to unchecked authoritarian power. Let's be real, Americans elect a president every four years, not a king. Even if President Trump had won a landslide landslide electoral victory, which he didn't, that would be beside the point. And electoral victory does not justify running roughshot over the courts in the Constitution, which every president is sworn to uphold.
▶ 0:57:29Presidential power is not absolute. When President Trump empowers Elon Musk to ignore laws Congress passed or slashfunding Congress appropriated, he's undermining the power of the American people who voted us into office. If President Trump's agenda is as popular as he claims, he can work with his allies in Congress to convince the American people to support it. But he has no right to simply do whatever he wants just because House and Senate Republicans don't have the backbone to stop him.
▶ 0:57:58Democrats and independents are standing up against President Trump's blatant power grabs. Because if he can deny the rights of some people, there's nothing stopping him from denying the rights of all people all across America. And that should concern everyone in this room and everyone across this nation. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. We now recognize the chairman of the full committee for his opening statement, Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Who decides? That's the fundamental question. Who gets to make the call?
▶ 0:58:27Is the guy whose name was on the ballot or is it some bureaucrat? Is it the guy who got 77 million votes or some district judge? The left always says, "Trust the bureaucrat. trust the judge. It's the Fouchies. It's the Bosebergs who get to make the call. After all, they're the experts. They're smarter than we the people. They're smarter than all us hillbillies in flyover country who voted for President Trump. Trust them.
▶ 0:58:58That's not how it works. We the people have the power. You know what's interesting? For all the lefts talk about democracy, they don't really trust it. Last summer, they kicked their nominee off the ballot without a vote, without an election. And they put someone else on the ballot without a vote. Without an election.
▶ 0:59:16So, of course, they like some judge issuing orders or injunctions that stop the head of the executive branch from doing what he said he was going to do when he ran for the job and when the American people elected him. Think about it. Here in DC, an elected judge thinks she's better equipped better equipped to determine military readiness than the commander-in-chief.
▶ 0:59:39An unelected judge in California thinks he gets to decide how many probationary employees work in the executive branch, not the guy who was elected to run the executive branch. Another unelected federal district judge here in DC thinks he gets to decide how long illegal gang member terrorists stay in our country. Not the president, not commander-in-chief.
▶ 1:00:05And now that same judge gets randomly assigned, randomly assigned the Hexith case and he'll get to determine who the Secretary of Defense can talk to and how he has to do it, not the president. I think Americans see through this all. They know Representative Isa's legislation is exactly what's needed. They know who they elected and they want him to make decisions that affect the executive branch that affect our country. So, I want to thank our chairman, Mr. Isa, Mr. Roy for this hearing. I want to thank Mr.
▶ 1:00:34Isa for his bill, Mr. Schmid, a member of our committee who we put an amendment, his amendment on that bill, which I think makes it even stronger. We passed that legislation four weeks ago. It's going to be on the going to be on the floor tomorrow. It's going to pass the House. I want to thank our witnesses for being here, Miss Romero, what you've went through. Thank you for coming. And of course, Speaker Gingrich for your half a century of service to the Constitution, the country. Thank you for joining us. That is the question though. Who decides?
▶ 1:01:03The individuals that we the people elect or someone else? I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. We now recognize the ranking member of the fellow committee, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Rasi. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, and thanks to our witnesses for joining us today. Um, so why have 34 federal judges from 11 different districts with a combined 474 years of service on the bench?
▶ 1:01:33Judges appointed by presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump entered 57 different preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders against President Trump and Elon Musk's executive orders and actions like the ones nullifying constitutional birthright citizenship, unilaterally dismantling congressionally created agencies, uh, or impounding and diverting funds appropriated by Congress.
▶ 1:02:01Well, the majority says it's because these are radical judges and they lead off as our good chairman Isa did with Judge Jeb Booseberg, the chief judge of the District Court of the District Columbia, who enjoined the mass roundup and deportation of immigrants to an infamous El Salvadoran prison in peace time without any due process at all.
▶ 1:02:23allegedly under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a statute explicitly limited to wartime and military invasion. Some of our colleagues have been railing against Judge Booseberg for ordering the planes to be turned around. They say those planes were filled with terrorists. I think uh my good friend from Texas said, "Well, here's one person of many who wasn't a terrorist on that flight or a gangbanger.
▶ 1:02:52His name is Kilmer Garcia. He's a Marylander married to a US citizen who has a 5-year-old son with autism. And he went to pick up his son, but he was picked up first by ICE. And then he was shackled and put on that airplane and shipped off to the torturers of El Salvador without ever having the benefit of those two most beautiful words in the English language, due process. He never saw a judge.
▶ 1:03:21Nobody ever told him what he was being charged for. Nobody ever told him that there were any charges against him. And he was sent to a mega prison run by the self-proclaimed dictator of El Salvador. And yesterday, you know what happened, Mr. Chairman? The Trump administration admitted that it had made a mistake. He was not actually a gangbanger. He was not a criminal. It was all a mistake. If there had been due process, maybe that would have been determined. But there wasn't.
▶ 1:03:52But they put him on that plane and he's El Salvador. Well, all is well that ends well, right? No. The administration says there's nothing they can do about it now because he's no longer in US custody. This guy who lives in my state, married to a US citizen with citizen children. He's stuck with the dictator of El Well, Judge Boseberg, some of our colleagues want to impeach him.
▶ 1:04:22Look, some of our colleagues, they've got for wanted signs in the Canon House office building with the names and faces of judges on them. They want to impeach them now. They want to impeach Judge Booseberg. Some of my colleagues should be alerted to this fact. Judge Boseberg was first named to the bench by Bush. He was Justice Kavanaaugh's roommate at Yale, known in legal quarters as a very conservative judge.
▶ 1:04:52But they want to impeach him because he stood up for the rule of law. Now, Democrats say all of these executive orders and actions are being struck down not because these are radical left rogue judges, but because the judges, regardless of who appointed them, are doing their jobs.
▶ 1:05:14If the number of decisions striking down Trump illegality is unprecedented today, it's only because the sheer number of illegal acts committed in the first 100 days is unprecedented. America's never seen anything like it before in our entire history. Trump and Musk have been systematically violating the Constitution and breaking the law to trample the rights of the people and steal our data.
▶ 1:05:39Fire excellent federal workers all mass and dismantle congressionally created government agencies and programs from the VA and Medicaid to Noah, NIH and Social Security, which Elon Musk called quote the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.
▶ 1:05:59When brave Americans go to court to defend themselves against the president of the United States and the richest man in the world, these judges from across the political spectrum are showing up to work and they're showing America why we have an independent judiciary.
▶ 1:06:13And yes, I've got to uh tell my friend Chairman Jordan that even if you campaign on doing something unconstitutional like naming people kings and queens or stealing other people's money, no, that doesn't make it constitutional even if you campaigned on it. And the vast majority of the things here I never heard of them campaigning on. But in any event, it's irrelevant to the job of the courts.
▶ 1:06:40Anyone who's read any of the decision knows that what we're witnessing today is a matchless constitutional crime spree by a rogue president and his Doge enforcer, a government contractor who has pocketed $ 38 billion from the taxpayers, multiples more than he has ever even claimed to have saved us. And we know how Doge makes typos converting millions into billions.
▶ 1:07:09Read the decisions. Look at these cases finding that Trump violated Congress's spending power and usurped our lawmaking power under article one. Read the cases finding that Trump violated the first amendment free speech rights, the fifth amendment due process rights, the sixth amendment council rights of the people, even by discriminating by name against law firms and lawyers.
▶ 1:07:31actually banning specific firms and lawyers from federal buildings and courouses, federal contracts, and federal employment, all simply because they dared to represent their clients and Trump hates them. Now, out of this mountain of cases, which I can only surmise our colleagues have not read, let's zero in on Trump's executive order contradicting the very first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which says that any person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen of the United States.
▶ 1:08:02Trump got struck down by a Reagan judge, a Biden judge, an Obama judge, and a Bush judge. The Reagan judge said, quote, "I've been on the bench for four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. Blatantly. This is from a Reagan judge.
▶ 1:08:28Now, my colleagues seem to think that an executive order is greater than a law or the Constitution itself. But an executive order cannot trump a federal statute, much less the Constitution. An executive order is just an order to the executive bureaucracy to follow a policy unless and until it's countermanded by law by the courts. Many of our colleagues are following Trump and Musk in calling for impeachment right now.
▶ 1:08:56There have been only 15 federal judges impeached of in all of American history. Always for serious misconduct like taking bribes, stealing from the court or habitual drunkenness. Not even occasional drunkenness, habitual drunkenness on the bench. Congress has never defined a doctrinal or interpretive disagreement as a high crime and misdemeanor, much less when the judges reasoning was airtight correct.
▶ 1:09:27The spreading movement to impeach and attack judges is so alarming that Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare statement last week. He said, "For more than two centuries, it's been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.
▶ 1:09:45The proper response, of course, is to appeal the decision." And to be fair, Chairman Isa expressed his strong disapproval of these wanted posters yesterday in the rules committee. Now, for some members, talk of impeaching these so-called rogue judges is just fun and games. But the assault, the vicious rhetorical assault on the judiciary has turned into something more sinister in certain quarters.
▶ 1:10:13Actual violent threats, bomb threats, direct intimidation. Judge Boseberg, the Bush appointee, must endure scandalous online attacks and insults by President Trump and Elon Musk and their followers. Even worse, the campaign of vilification has spread to Judge Booseberg's family, including outrageous attacks on his daughter, who's had her photo and her place of work posted on social media by Elon Musk to his 290 million followers.
▶ 1:10:42These threats follow an actual bomb threat made to the sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And there are numerous numerous other threats taking place today. And of course, we've seen threats and actual violence and murders take place in the past. I call on my colleagues right now to call off the campaign to impeach federal judges for doing their jobs.
▶ 1:11:06I call on them to demand that the Trump administration comply with all judicial orders while appealing whichever ones they want to appeal and to to demand the return of people unlawfully taken to El Salvador on that so-called plane full of gangbangers. And I especially call on them today to denounce all violent threats, doxing, online vilification, and threats against our judges.
▶ 1:11:31This is the judiciary committee of the United States House of Representatives and we should act like it. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I ask unanimous consent that the official statement by ICE officials agreeing that there was uh not 100% accuracy in Mr. Garcia's arrest that in fact he was a prominent member of MS13 uh a different recognized terrorist group. Without objection. So ordered. Without objection.
▶ 1:12:00Uh, all other opening statements will be included in the record. I'd now like to introduce our distinguished panel, beginning with the Honorable N. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich is the former colleague here in the House and served from 1979 to 1999, including four years as the Speaker of the House. Speaker Gingrich was instrumental in formulating Contract with America and returning Republicans to a House majority after 40 years of Democrat control.
▶ 1:12:30Since leaving the Congress, he has remained incredibly active and in fact in both policy, politics and government. He has led having authored more several dozen books and teaching military officers and other national security professionals at the National Defense University. Welcome, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Paul Larkin. Mr.
▶ 1:12:53Larkin is the John Barbara and Victoria Remple Senior Legal Research Fellow at the Edwin Me III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at Heritage Foundation. Before joining Heritage, Mr. Larkin served in various positions in the Department of Justice and at the EPA and as a Senate staff. Um he has spent a number of years in private practice and is most prepared for today's hearing.
▶ 1:13:24Welcome Miss Cindy Romero. Miss Romero is a resident of Aurora, Colorado who first saw who saw firsthand the effects of soft on crime and open border uh immigration policy. She was a resident of an apartment complex targeted by Tren Diagua and eventually was forced to move after her neighbors were reportedly victimized and her car was struck was uh was struck by gunfire.
▶ 1:13:54Lastly, Professor Kate Shaw. Miss Shaw is a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Kerry Law School. Professor Shaw researches focuses on executive power and the Supreme Court along with other issues. I want to welcome all of our witnesses and ask you please rise to take uh the pledge to be sworn in the right hand.
▶ 1:14:23Do you solemnly swear or affir affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? So, hope you God. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the Okay. Uh we'll begin with Mr.
▶ 1:14:52Larkin and I would only ask uh you've you've all seen this on C-SPAN but to the greatest extent possible please wrap up by the end of five minutes you'll have the indicator on your desk but your entire statements will be included in the record uh as will uh additional information um which I can't speak for everyone but I know the speaker will revise and extend with considerable uh authentication. Mr.
▶ 1:15:19Lin I I think check and make sure you're on and pull it a little closer perhaps. Is that better much? The practice of issuing nationwide injunctions outside the confines of a certified nationwide class action is mistaken as a matter of law and unwise as a matter of policy. Let's start with the law and in there let's also start with the constitution.
▶ 1:15:48The legislative power is granted to Congress and what is the primary product of that legislative power? It is what the constitution defines as a law. The term law also shows up in article 3. But it shows up in article three under the phrase arising under the constitution, the laws or treaties. It is not the courts that are responsible for creating the law.
▶ 1:16:14It's the courts who are responsible for interpreting it as it applies, but they can only do so in the context of a case or controversy. Two structural limitations on what the courts can do. In other words, in order for the courts to be able to say what the law is, they have to get on the playing field. And in order to do that, you have to have a case or controversy. Now, why does that matter? Well, the Constitution does speak to this.
▶ 1:16:42As I've said, only the Congress can create a law. Anytime a court enters a judgment that is tantamount to being a law, the judge has gone too far. And in the case of nationwide injunctions, a judgment in favor of nonparties goes too far.
▶ 1:17:01You also have no statute in the judicial code, no provision in the constitution, and no settled history at common law that allows a judge to enter these sorts of orders. That's important because everything has to fit into one of those three. Why the Supreme Court has interpreted article 3 in light of how it was understood in 1789.
▶ 1:17:29And so those are the three primary bases that you have to look to the text of the constitution, statutes, and English common law history. In fact, there are two Supreme Court cases that directly undermine the legitimacy of nationwide injunctions outside of certified class actions. One is Williams versus Zara.
▶ 1:17:51In that case, the court said there is no case or controversy between two parties that are in a case over an issue that has not been put into dispute by one or the other of them. It logically follows that there is no issue in dispute between someone who is a party and someone who is a stranger to the entire litigation.
▶ 1:18:15Similarly, at the back end of the process is the case of United States versus Mendoza where the Supreme Court held that the federal government is not subject to the win or go home rule that you see in the NCAA postseason tournament. The government isn't stuck with ever whatever loss it has the first time it litigates a case to a final judgment and loses.
▶ 1:18:39The doctrines in the law of issue proclusion or collateral estoppel the new and old terms do not apply to the federal government. Why? The Supreme Court in the unanimous decision in Mendoza said they do not. Why? Because there are a variety of good policy reasons why it shouldn't. With that then let me turn to the policy reasons that show these this practice is unwise. There are several. Okay.
▶ 1:19:04First, mandatory injunctions prevent the percolation of issues in the lower court that the US Supreme Court in Mendoza said is necessary for that court to be able best to resolve whatever legal dispute there is. It allows the court to be sure that all of the issues, all of the sub issues, all of the arguments pro and con, all of the benefits and costs of whatever rule are fully aired.
▶ 1:19:28Secondly, it encourages judge All you have to do is find one favorable judge and you can stop an entire administration in its tracks. And as you know, it has happened to every administration over the course of this 20th 1st century from the George W. Bush administration to the present. Each party has been subject to this practice. Third, it can result in conflicting nationwide injunctions.
▶ 1:19:59You can wind up with injunctions going one way and the other way because a court in Maine and a court in Alaska can come out the opposite way in a case. Finally, they are going to weaken the doctrine of starry decisis because as the Supreme Court comes to realize if it has to decide issues at a preliminary stage of the case without the guidance of the lower courts, they're going to have to overrule some of their decisions. Let me end where I began.
▶ 1:20:28This practice is mistaken as a matter of law and unwise as a matter of policy. Thank you. Thank you, Speaker Gingrich. Thank you, Chairman Isa and Roy, Ranking Members Johnson and Scandlin, and all the members of the subcommittees for allowing me to testify. There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the judicial branch's effort to fully override the legislative and executive branches.
▶ 1:20:5415 district judges effectively seize control of various executive branch duties in the first six weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions. This is potentially a judicial coup d'eta. It clearly violates the constitution and more than 200 years of American history. To set the stage for this hearing, let me mention 12 former federal judges appointed by President John Adams.
▶ 1:21:18Richard Basset, Egart Benson, Benjamin Bourne, William Griffith, Samuel Hitchcock, Philip Barton Kay, Jeremiah Smith, George Keith Taylor, Oliver Wilcott Jr., Williams McClung, Charles McIll, and Williams Tilman. President Johnson, President Adams appointed these federal judges on his way out of office to hamstring the incoming President Tom Thomas Jefferson's agenda. President Jefferson concluded that impeaching the judges would take too much time.
▶ 1:21:48He and the Congress simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of 1802. This is a constitutional balance of power. The legislative and executive branches can reshape the judiciary branch. It is a useful reminder in considering the current situation. Unelected lower court judges have been steadily grabbing power for years. It was such an obvious threat that in 2012, Vince Haley and I wrote, "Bringing the court back under the Constitution.
▶ 1:22:15It is an historic study which I am submitting for the record. According to Harvard Law Review, there were 96 nationwide injunctions ordered by district courts from 2001 to 2023. Twothirds of them, 64, were issued during president's time in office. Furthermore, 92% of the injunctions against President Trump were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
▶ 1:22:39Since January 20th, 2025, lower courts have imposed 15 nationwide injunctions against the current Trump administration. This is compared to six during George W. Bush's eight years, 12 during Barack Obama's eight years, and 14 during Joe Biden's four-year term. The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the executive branch and override a commander-in-chief who received 77.3 million votes should trouble every American.
▶ 1:23:08This is particularly troubling for issues of national defense and public safety around 500 BC. Sunsu asserted in the art of war that quote speed is the essence of war. How can the United States have speed in national security issues if opponents can judge shop to find someone ambitious or arrogant enough to block, repudiate, or delay the president's decisions? There are 677 authorized judgeships. How many think they can override dulyeleed presidents?
▶ 1:23:37This summary statement has four propositions. First, the courts have often been challenged. President Jefferson wrote, quote, "Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions would place us under the desperatism of an oligarchy." Close quote. President Andrew Jackson was in constant fights with the Supreme Court. President Abraham Lincoln made the DreadScott decision expanding slavery a centerpiece of his 1858 senatorial campaign.
▶ 1:24:02In his first inaugural, President Lincoln warned that if the Supreme Court held Supreme Rule, quote, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Close quote. Second, as the Judiciary Act of 180 prove 1802 proves, the legislative and executive branches can constitutionally defend their rights, and they have in the past.
▶ 1:24:26It is historically and constitutionally wrong to think the legislative and executive branches are helpless against judiciary actions. Third, the Supreme Court could intervene to eliminate this attack on the executive branch by district judges. Chief Justice Roberts could end the growing confrontation by establishing a rule that any nationwide injunction issued by a district court against the executive branch would be suspended in implementation and immediately taken up by the Supreme Court. This would remedy the lengthy appeals process.
▶ 1:24:56Fourth, the Congress and the president can take decisive steps toward bringing the judiciary back into a constitutional framework. This hearing is a good first step. There could be a series of hearings on the constitutional and historic framework which ensures no single branch of government can acquire dictatorial powers, specifically the judiciary in this committee. These hearings would educate the members and the American people. They would create a national understanding of the need to defend the constitution against overreaching branches of government.
▶ 1:25:24I would also recommend that the congressman that the congress pass chairman is no rogue rulings act which is a good signal to the courts that they have gone too far. Thank you and I look forward to your questions. Thank you Miss Romero. My name is Cindy Romero.
▶ 1:25:47I'm a wife, a mother of five, a grandmother of three, a part-time worker and student, and a former resident of Aurora, Colorado. I'm one of the many victims across the nation of the violent gang, Trenagua, and a former lifelong Democrat. My husband and I resided at the edge of Lowry apartment for four years.
▶ 1:26:15And while the first few years were a pleasant experience, we soon began observing changes in our once neighborhood. And in the spring and summer of 2024, we noticed shuttles dropping off large number of illegal immigrants onto the property.
▶ 1:26:33Throughout the year, we watched in horror as a few apartments full of migrant families quickly evolved into large groups of guntoing military-aged males, threatening the remaining lease holders into abandoning their properties, then kicking in the doors to the many vacated units to make room for other gang members.
▶ 1:26:58Open air drug use, drug dealers, and seemingly underage prostitutes filled the common areas of the buildings. Large parties in the parking lots lasted well into the morning. Stolen and abandoned vehicles block residents cars. Property damage was evident, and random shootouts soon began to be expected on our block every night.
▶ 1:27:22These criminals brought in unlicensed electricians to run electricity to abandon apartments and locksmiths to change the locks on the outside of the buildings to deny access to the owners, emergency services, and even the lease holders of the building. Despite several calls for help to the Aurora Police Department, they often provided conflicting excuses for not responding.
▶ 1:27:49For example, one officer told me that he wanted to respond but was instructed not to. Or they were often responding to other rampant crimes across the city or had to respond to any crime in my neighborhood with no less than three or four officers and an armored vehicle. One officer suggested I go to the media because he felt sorry for me.
▶ 1:28:17He likely unintentionally saved my life. Although we were low income and barely paying our bills, we realized the need to invest in home protection and we purchased three additional handguns and six cameras in the event that we had to defend ourselves.
▶ 1:28:36And during June and July, the gang members slowly began to torture us through intimidation, loud arguments, physical conflicts outside our door every night, vandalizing, taking over vacant apartments on our floor. And after several confrontations with the gang members, several calls, and submitting video evidence to the Aurora Police Department with no results, we gave up trying to stop them from squatting on the property.
▶ 1:29:05We spent the next few weeks looking for rental and we were unable to locate another lowincome property rental that didn't have the same exact issues that we were facing every day. We reached out to local mainstream media, several NOS's in our community begging for help only to be turned away because we were just ordinary taxpayers.
▶ 1:29:30There were no government programs to grant citizens temporary protected status from imported gangs in our own country.
▶ 1:29:45On August 18th, at 11:21 p.m., 10 minutes after my now viral video was recorded, a young man, who I called my friend, was mortally wounded outside my apartment during a fire firestorm of bullets, causing thousands of dollars in damages to cars and surrounding properties by six gunmen, later identified as Trener Aagua.
▶ 1:30:15And thanks to the hero heroism of one local Aurora city council woman named Danielle Derinsky and some of her friends including um John Fabricatory. They'd been sounding the alarm over TDA for months while being called a liar and ignored by their governor. I was finally able to escape these horrible conditions due to their help.
▶ 1:30:42In the media frenzy following the video release, many TDA members have now been identified and arrested all over country. Danielle Derinsky has never received an apology or acknowledgement for exposing the threat. When I heard that Mr.
▶ 1:31:01Trump had taken an interest in Aurora and our struggles with Trenaragua, I was I was hopeful that a change was, you know, getting ready to happen, that it was on the way, that it was impending. And as president, he did not me. And I feel safer knowing that our country becomes more secure daily.
▶ 1:31:27I continue to think that the lives of my family and many many others in my community were put at risk by the Biden administration's failed sanctuary policies at the southern border. Sanctuary status puts citizens risk and we we must stop pushing ideology over common sense. Thank you. Thank you.
▶ 1:31:56Would you uh show the video before we move on, It seems coming out of a movie as the Venezuelan gang Tender Aua are seen breaking into apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado. This is according to our sister station in Denver. There you can see the group wellarmed and forcing an apartment door open and making their way in. This has raised concerns amongst residents and Colorado state law enforcement officials.
▶ 1:32:29Thank you, Professor Shaw. Chairman is excuse me, Chairman Isa, Ranking Member Johnson, Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scandlin, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Rascin, and distinguished members of the subcommittees. Thank you for the invitation to testify today. My name is Kate Shaw. I'm a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Kerry Law School.
▶ 1:32:50I understand that the purpose of today's hearing is to discuss recent judicial rulings against the Trump administration and to evaluate some of the responses to those rulings being considered by this body, in particular resolutions of impeachment against federal judges and a bill that would limit the power of district courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Let me say at the outset that in my view, the premise of this hearing that courts have overreached or transcended the limits of their authority and that this overreach calls for some response is badly mistaken.
▶ 1:33:19It is true, as has already been noted this morning, that the Trump administration has been on a losing streak in the federal courts. A recent analysis by Professor Steve Ladic found that of the 151 cases brought against the Trump administration since January 20th, 46 have resulted in some sort of preliminary relief. That relief has been ordered by judges across the country and by judges appointed by presidents of both parties.
▶ 1:33:42This broad consensus makes clear that despite the claims of some critics, these rulings do not grow out of substantive disagreements with President Trump's policy choices. The lawsuits have been brought and have overwhelmingly succeeded because many of the challenged actions have been taken without regard for and often with outright contempt for both statutes and the constitution. And by that I mean both the constitutionally required process for lawmaking and the rights the constitution commands government to respect.
▶ 1:34:10First, as to process, Article 1's lawmaking provisions are pretty straightforward. Laws must be passed by both passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president or repassed over a veto. Laws governing funding, that is, appropriations, are laws like any other. As for article two, it has long been settled that when the president acts, it needs to be pursuant to some authority Congress has granted or within one of the narrow areas in which article 2 gives the president the authority to act without congressional authorization.
▶ 1:34:38That is the heart of Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown, still the most influential judicial account of presidential power. What all of that means is that if President Trump wished to reshape or even eliminate many federal agencies or dramatically reduce government expenditures on foreign aid or eliminate job protections for federal workers or roll back federal privacy protections, working with his many allies in Congress, including those on this committee, was the constitutionally permissible way to do that.
▶ 1:35:07Instead, he has ignored the laws passed by Congress and the constitutional rules that give Congress primacy in lawmaking. Beyond those largely procedural failures, many of the administration's initiatives have flouted core constitutional principles, the freedom of speech and expression, due process, equal protection, equal justice and equal protection under law.
▶ 1:35:30President Trump has used the power of government to exact retribution against individuals and entities who have engaged in constitutionally protected activities. And he has brought the full weight of the state down on vulnerable groups the constitution protects. In short, this administration has been marked by a breathtaking degree of presidential unilateralism that is flatly inconsistent with the constitution and with numerous statutes passed by Congress. That is true in general terms and it is true as to specific actions. That is why President Trump has fared so badly in court.
▶ 1:36:00To be sure, some of these rulings will be some already have been reversed on appeal. Reasonable minds can disagree about some of these questions. But rather than focus on the appellet process or on correcting the legal defects, this administration and many of its supporters have suggested that the problem is district judges. And rather than use the constitutional rather than use its constitutional authority to enact laws that would give the president the power to do some of the things he wishes to do, this body has devoted itself to two things.
▶ 1:36:28Stripping the power of federal courts to issue injunctions and pursuing the impeachments of federal judges who have merely discharged their obligation to uphold the constitution. To my mind, the district court judges who have ruled against the administration have not come close to engaging in high crimes and mis and misdemeanors, the constitutional standard for impeachment.
▶ 1:36:46And although Congress has considerable power to regulate the federal courts, including potentially restricting court's ability to issue nationwide relief, the current moment calls for caution in pursuing change that would curtail court's ability to meaningfully review and remedy unlawful executive action. It has been suggested already this morning that rulings against the administration thwart the will of the people. But democracy does not begin and end with elections for president. It includes elections for membership in Congress.
▶ 1:37:15the branch closest to the people and the entity whose authority many of these decisions protect. Democracy also means more than just elections. It includes values like the ability to engage in speech and expression, to associate, to petition. Meaningful democracy also requires genuine political equality, procedural fairness, and mechanisms for the protection of minorities. And in our system, courts can be a key guarantor of those aspects of democracy. They are doing their part to preserve both law and democracy.
▶ 1:37:45Other branches of government should join them. Thank you again for the invitation and I look forward to your questions. Thank you. We'll now go in uh in order uh out of order uh in order to give Mr. uh Mcccleintoch the first round of questioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ranking member offers us an example of an upstanding law-abiding Marylander in the case of Brago Garcia.
▶ 1:38:15As Mr. ISIS said, Mr. Garcia has been identified as a member of MS13, the most violent criminal gang on the planet. And there's one report just published that he's implicated in human trafficking in this country. Uh, not exactly Rotary Club material, I think. Um but but shouldn't the circumstances of his case be examined in an individual action before a district court and not dumped into a a far-reaching edict arising from another case that has very different circumstances.
▶ 1:38:45Mr. Larkin, what's what's your opinion of that? microphone. How about now? My mistake. Uh my understanding is these actions that have been challenged have been challenged under the administrative procedure act not as actions seeking federal habius corpus relief.
▶ 1:39:09Uh federal habius corpus is the traditional remedy that someone uses when they're claiming the government has unjustly seized them. There's even a provision for next friends and and and that that option exists in law and I think that that's the appropriate option. Is it not? It the the administrative procedure act is not yes. Uh for example, you can't use section 1983 to challenge the legitimacy of your conviction. You have to use the habius corpus act.
▶ 1:39:39So and these are these are individual cases with very different individual circumstances and ought to be uh that's right. I mean what you what you have you know particular John Doe number one two three whatever each case has to be examined separately but it should be in habius corpus not the administrative procedure Mr.
▶ 1:39:56Gingrich I'm I'm told that 92% of the judges who've issued blanket injunctions against the administration have been appointed by Democrats that at least suggests a rather partisan tilt to all this and it's not being done even-handedly uh what's your view of that and doesn't that undermine public confidence in our courts?
▶ 1:40:16Well, I think if you look at the recent reports from various polling firms, clearly a majority of Americans believe that no single district judge should be allowed to issue a nationwide injunction. Uh, and I think that when you look, look, my judgment as a historian, this is clearly a judicial coup d'eta.
▶ 1:40:36You don't have this many different judges issuing this many different nationwide injunctions, all of them coming from the same political ideological background and just assume it's all random efforts of justice. This is a clear effort to stop the scale of change that President Trump represents and and I agree a lot of this stuff can be fought out.
▶ 1:40:57Some of it should be fought out in the Congress, but it shouldn't be micromanaging the executive branch on national security issues by random single judges who have no standing. They have no particular knowledge. They haven't been in the room. They don't know what the consequences of what they're doing are. And they put both Americans and the nation at risk when they intervene to become basically alternative presidents.
▶ 1:41:23you now have potentially 677 alternative presidents, none of whom won an election. Well, we all believe in due process. You know, every injured party should have access to the courts, and they do. Uh the question is whether a a single district court can go beyond the case before them and and apply the same decision to others who whose cases are not before the court in jurisdictions that go far beyond their own. You Mr. Gingri, you you've pointed out that there are several ways to address this.
▶ 1:41:52uh one is congressional action, the other is the Supreme Court putting its own house in order. In fact, the Alto descent recently suggests that there are at least four of the justices who very much want to do this. It seems to me that's the cleanest and most surgical route, assuring that that the rule is done from within the court and not imposed by legislation. What are your views on on what the Supreme Court should do and on what you you already mentioned what we should do?
▶ 1:42:17Look, I think the Chief Justice would achieve far more for judicial independence if he cleaned up his own judiciary rather than lecturing the rest of us. And I think there are ways he could intervene. As I mentioned in my testimony, they could establish a rule that any nationwide injunction issued by a district court will be held in obeyance and will be immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.
▶ 1:42:44You know, Lincoln makes this case very head-on fight, which is ironic because Chief Justice Tony as attorney general for Jackson had ruled against the courts and had said as attorney general, the courts cannot order the president.
▶ 1:42:59Now he then becomes chief justice, extends slavery potentially to the whole country and is lectured by Lincoln in the in his first inaugural as Tony sits there and Lincoln is essentially saying this was the law of the case not the land and we will not enforce it and they don't they never enforce DreadScott and so I think Chief Justice should think seriously about intervening to preempt any requirement for something such as uh
▶ 1:43:29Chairman Heis's bill, which I I support strongly, but would be no reason to have it if the Chief Justice did his job. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. I now ask unanimous consent that the previously played video be placed in the record.
▶ 1:43:44Additionally, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal article entitled Why Judge Bo Booseberg's deportation order is invalid, legally invalid, be placed in the record, and that u the Harvard Law Review article entitled District Court Reforms NA reforms colon nationwide injunctions uh be placed in the record without objection. So ordered and we now go to the ranking member, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:44:15I'm reminded of the quote uh that goes something like, "When the law is not on your side, argue the facts, and when the facts are not on your side, argue the law, and when neither is on your side, then pound the table." Well, Trump doesn't have the facts or the law on his side. And so with this exercise today, he is vicariously pounding the table.
▶ 1:44:45Uh, Shaw, President Trump has targeted and attacked some very wealthy and powerful entities to send a message to the less powerful. Trump has attacked Columbia University. He has attacked the white shoe silk stocking law firms like Paul Weiss and Scott Arts.
▶ 1:45:07These powerful wealthy entities can afford to sue to protect their interest and our rule of law. But instead, they chose to lay down and get steamrolled by the bully. Professor Shaw, how does laying down and getting steamrolled compromise the rule of law and undermine our democracy?
▶ 1:45:31Um let me just say that you know there have been targeted entities right including a number of law firms that have in fact not laid down that are in fact taking a strong position of resistance to what they believe to be the unlawful components of some of the targeting orders.
▶ 1:45:46Um so law firms including Wilmer Hail, Jenner and Block, Perkins Kuey um have made their responses and their views of the impermissibility of the targeting of uh law firms for no reason other than their decision to take on disfavored representations and to advance legal arguments that the president has personally objected to and and and sometimes been on the receiving end of.
▶ 1:46:09Um, and so, you know, I I do think that calling out clearly unlawful exe executive action is critically important, particularly for entities with resources and stature. Um, and I think that it encourages the targeting in unlawful ways for institutions to refuse to take a stand. I think that the orders targeting law firms are clearly unlawful.
▶ 1:46:34I think that some judges have already so found and I think that the judges that rule on those orders will continue to find that um and you know the last thing I'll say is I think that law firms that have decided not to fight and that are complying haven't bought themselves any security necessarily. I'm not sure there's any guarantee that they won't be subject to further targeting simply because they have acquiesced in sometimes coercive terms in the first instance. Yeah. when the bully knows that he can bully you, then he's going to continue bullying you until you stand up.
▶ 1:47:05And so, I'm glad that uh these other law firms and other academic institutions have and are standing up. What What would happen to access to justice for the least of these if these very wealthy and powerful entities that are being targeted today?
▶ 1:47:24If each and every one of them laid down and just allowed themselves to be steamrolled, I think there could be a chilling effect in the willingness of law firms to take on disfavored representations. You know, the targeting has not been limited to law firms either, right? There has been um an effort to suggest that sanctions will be sought by the Department of Justice against nonprofits and other legal actors that have engaged in litigation against the administration.
▶ 1:47:50And so it does seem quite clearly designed to reduce the amount of courageous litigation against and challenges to executive action. Um and so uh you know I think that the cost the potential costs for the rule of law are you know incalculable. Yeah. because it's based on the adversarial system and if you wipe out the adversaries then you wipe out the adversarial system or the adversary system.
▶ 1:48:20I think that's right that that attacks on, you know, look, lawyers are not always popular, right? So, so attacking lawyers is not something that everyone is always going to object to, but judges need lawyers to present arguments to them, and our system of justice and the rule of law requires lawyers to take on representations, including potentially unpopular representations. So, I do not think these attacks on, you know, white shoe law firms should be understood as just about white shoe law firms.
▶ 1:48:46I do think they are attacks on the very idea of access to justice and to the rule of law. And when you attack in addition to the lawyers, you attack the judges and claim that they need to be impeached not for u um committing high crimes and misdemeanors, but for simply ruling in a way uh that is against the bully. What impact does that have on our justice system and our democracy?
▶ 1:49:14I I worry that the the intent there is the same to basically have a chilling effect on the willingness of judges to rule against the administration. In the same way the you know I think part of the intent of these executive orders is to create a climate of fear and intimidation and to disincentivize taking on representations including against the federal government. So I think the intended effect is likely the same. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back. Yields back. We now go to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:49:42Chairman, um, this hearing reminds me of a breakfast I had with Antinine Scalia. About a dozen of his congressmen invited him to breakfast and this was about a decade ago when uh, Obama was the president and John Boehner was the speaker and uh, my colleagues appealed to Scalia and said, "What can you do? You we you need to get involved here. The courts need to get involved. Obama's running roughshod over Congress.
▶ 1:50:12And uh Scalia refused to accept that premise. He said, "No, you this is not my job to referee fights between your two branches. My job is as a jurist to defi decide if somebody's been harmed and what the remedy is." And occasionally we interpret the law um and the constitution constitutionality of it. He said, "And by the way, you're the most powerful branch of government. I don't know what you're complaining about. All the tools you need to restore the balance are in the Constitution.
▶ 1:50:42And one of my colleagues protested that impeachment was just too hard to pull off. And given the threshold in the Senate and the political backlash and Scalas shook his head. He said, "I'm not talking about impeachment. You all have the power of the purse. You are funding everything you complain about that Obama is doing. Just quit funding it." And u it was pretty clear message.
▶ 1:51:06Now, that was about tension between Congress and the executive branch and our hearing today is about tension between the judicial system and the executive branch. But I think it's still the case that what Scalia said is true. U let me give you an example of something I'm going to predict is going to happen in the courts soon that I'm not going to have much sympathy for uh the president.
▶ 1:51:33So, the president recently held a press conference and said he's going to wind down the Department of Education. Oh, great. That's my bill. I've got a one-s sentence bill that eliminates the Department of Education. I should be very excited about this. The problem is much of the activity that he says he will undertake. He just signed into law the funding of it a week before. We did a continuing resolution that fully funds every single penny of the Department of Education.
▶ 1:52:01than a week and the president signed it. This is as professor Shaw pointed out uh appropriations bills are laws too and they require both chambers and then the president to to sign it and so it's an appropriation bill. It's a law. It's in law and a week later he announces that he doesn't like some of the law and so he's going to do things differently.
▶ 1:52:27So that's that's my problem that I have now on the I do think it's a good hearing and this is a great question. I tend to think that u probably there are cases where the they shouldn't have nationwide injunctions but this is a double-edged sword under the Biden administration. He did unconstitutional and unlawful things during COVID that were stopped with nationwide injunctions.
▶ 1:52:53So for instance, he had a rent moratorum that was uh stopped until the Supreme Court eventually uh basically said it was illegal. He had uh he refused to grant religious exemptions to the vaccines in the military. There was a nationwide injunction. Actually, one of the attorneys in that is a constituent of mine, Chris Wuest, who stopped all of the the vaccine mandates um at that point in the Air Force.
▶ 1:53:22Uh that was a nationwide injunction and then his OSHA vaccine mandate was stopped with a nationwide injunction. So I'm torn on this. You maybe if we just don't have nationwide injunctions, people in certain districts can live under tyranny or the perception of it and if you're in a different judicial district or circuit, you you get some remedy from the tyranny. Maybe it works out better that way. Maybe we should have tried each of these cases in each of these courts and found out the answer.
▶ 1:53:52But um Mr. Speaker, former Speaker N. Gingrich, what what do you have to say on the since you were speaker and led this appropriations process, do you think the president can unwind the Department of Education a week after he signed the bill that it?
▶ 1:54:12yield to well as you know when I was speaker we balanced the budget something you believe in uh for four straight years the only time in the last century so I think I can talk with some authority about this uh I sus I suspect there will be a real fight at the Supreme Court level over whether or not the president has empoundment authority which was taken away uh during the the collapse of the Nixon presidency but had existed before that that'll be a legal fight I think your point about injunctions is semi Am I right?
▶ 1:54:42That is a court should be able to issue the injunction. My point about this the chief justice is if that if that particular single district judge says this is a valid injunction if they immediately went to the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court agreed that it was a valid injunction then you could have a nationwide injunction.
▶ 1:55:05But I I'm with Lincoln uh who said even though the court had decided 7 to2 uh that slavery could be extended nationally. He refused to accept the legitimacy of that decision because it wasn't unanimous. Now so the president is pretty clear. I think your your instinct is right. There are times you need a nationwide action. My only point is if the district judge says that the following morning it should be in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court should have to render judgment.
▶ 1:55:33If they agree, then you have a nationwide injunction. But if they say no, you're an error, then there's no nationwide injunction. Makes sense to me. I yield back. Thank the gentleman. We now go to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Rascin, for 5 minutes. Thank you, Chairman. I you know, respect for the separation of powers is intertwined with respect for due process of the citizens. Uh the gentleman from California essentially invited us to accept the deportation of someone from America without any due process at all.
▶ 1:56:03Uh which the administration has admitted was a mistake because now he's hypothesizing that person belongs to a different criminal gang and engaged in other different hypothetical crimes. And obviously the reason why we have due process is because we can't uh try these cases in the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives. So just reading from a court document here. Plaintiff Abrego Garcia is not a member of nor has any affiliation with Trenta, MS-13, or any other criminal or street gang.
▶ 1:56:33Although he's been accused of general gang affiliation, the US government has never produced any evidence to support this unfounded accusation. He has no criminal history. He's never been charged or convicted of any criminal charges in the United States. So who knows? That's why we have due process. This shouldn't be just fodder for uh cable TV. We're talking about people's lives here. Uh Professor Shaw, um what does due process actually mean?
▶ 1:57:01And um should Judge Boseberg be impeached for saying that the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 doesn't apply because we are not at war and we have not suffered an invasion by a foreign power. You know, the the core components of due process are straightforward, right? It it involves some notice and an opportunity to be heard, right? To make some sort of case in your own defense prior to deprivation of life, liberty, or property. So, that's in the Constitution.
▶ 1:57:29Due process applies to every person, not just to citizens. And due process doesn't look identical if we're talking about due process in the context of potential deportation or due process in the context of, you know, a change to your Social Security benefits, right? Due process is deeply context dependent and all Judge Boseberg has ruled as a preliminary matter in this case is that some sort of process has to be afforded before this potentially irreversible act occurs.
▶ 1:57:57Judge Boseberg has not ordered anyone released in the United States has not objected to the detention of the covered individuals. Has simply said provide reasons and an opportunity to respond and and follow the law and follow the law. And it seems from public reporting as though there is real reason to believe that errors were made. My colleagues are calling for the impeachment of Judge Boseberg.
▶ 1:58:19Has there ever been a federal district judge, a federal appeals court judge, or a US Supreme Court justice impeached because someone disagrees with the content of their ruling? We have no tradition of impeaching judges based on the contents of their ruling. We impeach them for bribery or corruption or habitual drunkenness uh on the bench. Uh, Speaker Gingrich, by the way, do you agree with the Republicans who are and with Donald Trump and Elon Musk who are calling for the impeachment of these judges? That's a yes or no.
▶ 1:58:49I actually agree with Jefferson that impeachment is a cumbersome and difficult process, virtually impossible to achieve, which is why you oppose the impeachment, which is why Jefferson abolished 14 courts because you professor, forgive me, you remember the five-minute rule. I I've got no more time. It's a yes or no question and I didn't get an answer from you. Um the Chief Justice uh Roberts has said that the correct response to disagreement with the district court decision is to appeal.
▶ 1:59:17I just heard Speaker Gingrich call this a judicial coup d'eta and he said this the chief justice should stop lecturing the rest of us. Whose right? Is it new Gingrich or is it Chief Justice Roberts here? In this instance, Chief Justice Roberts um I mean we have no tradition of impeaching judges. appeal is the remedy for disagreeing with the district judge. Or if it's a statutory ruling that's wrong, Congress can respond. Right? If it's a, you know, if there's a bias or misconduct issue, there are disciplinary processes and complaints that can be brought against judges.
▶ 1:59:47You can seek to recuse or a remand to a different judge. There are many remedies our system affords. If there is some sort of problem with a judge presiding over a case, but impeachment has never been in that toolkit. Do do you believe that there has been a conspiracy for a coup d'eta among 34 US federal district court judges appointed by presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? No, as you said, I think these judges are simply doing their jobs.
▶ 2:00:17Um, the only the only comparable case I can think of here is the impeach Earl Warren movement after Brown versus Board where there were racist segregationists who wanted to impeach Earl Warren because they did disagree with the content of his opinion. What happened with that? And do you think that uh he should have been impeached? I I mean, as far as I know, there were not impeachment resolutions introduced at that time.
▶ 2:00:44There was rhetoric, there was critique, and to be clear, criticizing judges is absolutely healthy in a democracy. I am not suggesting otherwise, but in this is already a pretty serious escalation to have seen these resolutions introduced. I really don't think they should go any further. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Uh, thank you. We now go to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, and I would ask if I could have 15 seconds of his time. I yield back to the chairman for Mr. Speaker Gingrich.
▶ 2:01:13I just have one short question and it is a yes or no unlike the other one. In your two decades as a member of Congress, did you see members of Congress put bills in of any sort because they were popular and felt strongly within their district whether or not they were moving anywhere, of course. And that would include things like uh impeachment whether they were likely to succeed or not. But they're political symbols, not legislative symbols. Very good. I thank you.
▶ 2:01:42I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin reclaiming my time. Mr. Larkin, nationwide injunctions, they're relatively new phenomenon, right? It's uh isn't that correct? Yes. Yeah. It's uh it's fair to say nationwide injunctions became uh more commonplace six in the 60s and 70s and that is because congress began authorizing general rulemaking by federal agencies such as uh passage of clean air act or the clean water act.
▶ 2:02:12Well, there are several factors that led to the late development of it. One is a change in philosophy of what it meant to say that something was unconstitutional. For example, Professor Samuel Bray explained this at length in his article. Traditionally, when a court said something was unconstitutional, it meant the government could not enforce it against you.
▶ 2:02:30Uh, over time, courts gradually began to to say, "No, that means you can't force it against anybody." The problem is that overlooks the role that a district court judge has both horizontally and vertically within the federal system. No one district court judge can bind the appellet court or the supreme court. No one district court judge in Maine can bind a district court judge or any judge in Alaska.
▶ 2:02:55And so unfortunately this practice developed and we didn't have anybody stepping back and saying no wait a minute are there constitutional statutory etc limitations on it and it has actually hurt both parties because each party has suffered through this process. Thank you, Speaker Gingrich.
▶ 2:03:13As you mentioned in your testimony, between 2001 and 2023, there were 96 nationwide injunctions issued, of which 64 granted against were gr granted against President President Trump. Why do you think the courts have issued nationwide injunctions against President Trump with such frequency? It's it's kind of a question we're all pondering right now.
▶ 2:03:38You know, one of my favorite books on the law is The Bramble Bush, which is the 1929 introductory lectures at Columbia Law School and which draws a distinction between the law as it is practiced and the law as it is written. So let's let's just at a common sense level, if we be honest, Donald Trump represents a profound fundamental shaking up of a very deeply resistant establishment which can be traced back to Franklin Roosevelt in 1933.
▶ 2:04:09You take on a system that's almost 100 years old, the system fights back. The last great bastion of power held by the left is district court judges and their allies on the Supreme Court. and they're behaving as a historian. This is a perfectly natural thing. They're doing everything they can to stop the president who was elected uh by millions of Americans. They were elected by no one. But under our system, they have a certain amount of power.
▶ 2:04:35Not nearly as much as the modern legal system believes because the 1958 decision by the Supreme Court which said we are supreme as baloney. The Supreme Court is supreme in article 3. It is not supreme over the whole constitution.
▶ 2:04:50And I think we're now going to face a genuinely important historic conversation as a country about whether or not unelected judges on a randomized basis who happen to be 92% Democrat have the power to stop the elected commander-in-chief on item after item after item. My guess is the American people will say to the legislative branch, "You got to be kidding me.
▶ 2:05:13And if Justice Roberts wants to cut this off, he should act now because this is going to get worse, not Thank you, Mr. Larkin. I'll just uh finish up with a quick question about forum shopping. It's something that's clearly been happening and we're used to it at the state level within the judiciary as well as at the federal level. I was wondering if you had a comment about that. Sure.
▶ 2:05:36I mean, the the problem is attempted to be avoided by having random assignment, but unfortunately there are some times when there's only a limited number of judges in a particular uh district. And as the result, if there's only one, that's who you're going to get. If there are two, you have a 50% chance. And people wind up doing this, not surprisingly, because they think judge A is going to give them a better likelihood of success.
▶ 2:06:01Now, you know, that's bad enough when what you're talking about is a damages action because that damages uh action is going to result in a check perhaps that goes just to one party. It's different when you're talking about having one judge in any one town enjoying the entirety of the federal government across the nation. That's a much more severe problem and that's why this is a reasonable effort to cabin that and you know picking favorable judges is a reason why. Thank you.
▶ 2:06:31I'd yield back. I think the gentleman we now recognize the gentle lady from California, Miss Lofrin for five minutes. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. It seems uh ironic that today's hearing is titled judicial overreach and constitutional limits on the federal courts because if we really care about constitutional limits, we should start by confronting the recent attacks on judicial in independence attacks that themselves defy the constitution.
▶ 2:07:00In the past few months, we've seen Elon Musk, President Trump, and even members of co Congress call for the impeachment of judges, not for misconduct, but because they don't like their rulings. And that's not how a constitutional democracy works. You know, it's true that members of the judiciary were not um elected by the electoral college. That is beside the point. As my colleague, Mr.
▶ 2:07:27Massie uh pointed out uh when Congress enacts a law signed into law by the president, the president can overturn that law with a statement which is essentially what an executive order is and that judges are making that finding is the role that they have been uh assigned.
▶ 2:07:49Now, Professor Shaw, uh, the recent federal court decisions, which by the way have been made by judges appointed by both political parties, um, have led to calls for the president's supporters to impeach these judges. Now, only 15 federal judges have been impeached by the House since 1804, and only eight had been removed by the Senate. I was involved in one of them for a very severe misconduct case.
▶ 2:08:19What's the standard in the constitution for impeachment for a federal judge? Well, it's been understood that the impeachment the constitutional language of treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors applies with full force to federal judges, although it's actually not explicit in the constitution and there are some scholars uh who have raised some questions about it. But our practice is consistent that that is the same standard that applies to other officers. It applies to judges.
▶ 2:08:43And in terms of how our practice has implemented that standard, it has been exactly as you said in the 15 judicial impeachments that have resulted in eight convictions and removals, they have been for serious misconduct, things like habitual drunkenness, sexual assault, or corruption, bribery, those types of offenses. The one impeachment of a Supreme Court justice, Justice Chase, was somewhat different because it involved explicit partisanship from the bench.
▶ 2:09:09But there you had repeated jury charges and actually kind of electioneering from the bench that also clearly distinguish the conduct at issue there from any of the rulings at issue here. So, so just to be, you know, succinct, none of these historical examples have anything to do with the substance of the rulings rendered by the judges who were subject to impeachment.
▶ 2:09:30Well, and even for those who uh cite the section of the Constitution that judges serve during times of good behavior, that wouldn't include disagreement with the outcome of a case. No, I the I mean I I would say the the combination of the good behavior language and the impeachment language has suggested that the way to implement the requirement of good behavior is through impeachment. There is no other mechanism that we have ever used to remove judges other than the impeachment mechanism.
▶ 2:09:59A and certainly there there's nothing to suggest that disagreement with a ruling, whether we're talking about as a matter of good behavior or the specific impeachment language, would ever be the basis for seeking to remove a federal judge. Senator Chuck Grassley, uh, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and hardly a bleeding heart liberal, um, recently said, and this is a quote, "You can't impeach a judge because you disagree with their opinion. I take it you agree with uh Senator Grassley's statement there.
▶ 2:10:29I do. Now, would doing so be damaging to our constitutional system of separation of powers? And if so, why would that be? I mean, I do want to be clear that I think that there is a healthy interbranch debate and dialogue that can include criticisms, including sharp criticisms of the rulings handed down by district judges, appellet judges, Supreme Court justices, and that can include hearings that consider and maybe adopt legislative change. Right?
▶ 2:10:58Obviously, Congress has considerable authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal court. So, I don't think any of that is unhealthy or destructive. But I do think that moving into an era in which substantive disagreement with the rulings of federal judges gave rise to impeachment proceedings would involve an escalation of this this kind of inter branch warfare and a politicization of the judiciary that would be extremely damaging to judicial independence and to the role of courts in our democracy. Thank you very much, Miss Romero.
▶ 2:11:26I found your testimony riveting and I'm sorry that you and your neighbors went through such a nightmare. There is not a single member of this committee on either side of the aisle that doesn't want violent criminals who are uh who in this situation to be deported. The issue is standing up for the rule of law, making sure they're due process when that is done and I want you to know that I listened very carefully to your testimony. I'm sorry what you went through. Thank you very much. Thank you.
▶ 2:11:57We now go to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Professor Shaw. So, was Judge Boseberg correct when he said turn the plane around? Um, so, you know, I think that protecting the jurisdiction of his court, that was the question.
▶ 2:12:15Was he correct when he said, "Turn the plane around, bring the guys back who harassed Miss Romero, drove her out of her home, harassed her neighbor, shot her car." Was he correct when he said, "Turn the plane around, bring those individuals back to the United States?" Based on the record before him, I think that was an absolutely defensible decision to have made in the time pressured condition. Miss Romero, what do you think? You agree with the professor and with the judge? Three of those, by the way, three of those individuals on the plane.
▶ 2:12:44Thomas Marillo Pena was wanted for kidnapping in Chile, was in the Denver area where they got him. Javier Vargas Lugo attempted kidnapping was in the Denver area. Nixon Azuja Perez was in the Aurora. He may have been one of the guys who harassed you. Do you think that plane should have came back and brought those individuals back to the United States? I feel safer every time a plane is loaded up and leaving this country. Yeah, I was, you know, the previous uh member uh from California talked about your riveting testimony.
▶ 2:13:13One of the lines you had in your testimony that got everyone's attention was quote, "There are no government programs to grant citizens temporary protected status from imported gangs in our country." Amen to that. There is none. And that's that's why this is so important that we move these people out. Mr. Speaker, should judge who's been assigned the Hexith case, Judge Boseberg, should he recuse himself from that case and understand the standard? I know you do, Speaker.
▶ 2:13:41The the standard is a reasonable person, would a reasonable person believe that this judge can't be impartial with this case? And I would just remind you of a couple things. This is the judge. This is the judge who was on the FISA court when they granted warrants to spy on President Trump's campaign. This is the judge who handled the Kevin Kleinmith case, an FBI lawyer who lied to the FISA court to help get those warrants and was given a slap on the wrist by Judge Booseberg. Not my words.
▶ 2:14:11The Wall Street Journal said it because it was he was a member of the bar, lied to a court, and got some probationary sentence. So now this judge said, "Turn the plane around." and now he's been assigned the Hexith case. And I'm just asking, do you think Judge Boseberg should recuse himself from that case? I look, I think this is a classic case where the Chief Justice should intervene.
▶ 2:14:36I mean, when you have a blatant continuing record of prejudice, that judge should not be put in charge of a case. Uh and as I said earlier, I'm not for going through the whole process of impeachment because I think it's at a practical level not possible. I am however uh for using the potential capacity of the Congress to simply defund which Jefferson did and which clearly has a clearly is possible.
▶ 2:15:02But I think this what you just described is illustrative of why I use the term coup d'eta. You have a small group of people who believe that they have the right to arrogate rejecting the American people and doing whatever they want and cooperating with people who clearly were behaving illegally. I mean that's one of the great tragedies of the last six or eight years is it's the government which has been illegal.
▶ 2:15:25It's the FBI which was illegal and how can you possibly have the rule of law when the people in charge of the law are illegal? I think in that case you you raise a very powerful point Mr. Lin should judge Boseberg recuse himself in the Hexith case. Oh, I don't want to offer an opinion about a specific case that I'm you know only you think you think Judge Boseberg based on what the speaker just said what I highlighted think judge Boseberg has a bias against President Trump and what he's trying to accomplish.
▶ 2:15:53That's just phrasing the same question another way. I I don't want to comment on a That's what that's what we do in Congress. That's a lot of time. Yeah. When I when I was an agent, we did the same thing to see if we could get the you know suspect to say something. How about this, Speaker Genrich? I think you're exactly right. We have three avenues to address this. We can do legislative, which we're going to do tomorrow. We're going to pass Chairman Ice's bill, which says that some district judge injunction doesn't apply nationwide. We may want to come back with another bill that says automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, what you've suggested, and we're looking at that very thing.
▶ 2:16:24Second, we have oversight, which is what we're doing now. We're highlighting how ridiculous some of these decisions have been. And third, what you pointed out is we got the appropriations process. The ultimate power we have, Mr. Massiey's right. The power of the purse, we should use it. We should use all three of those avenues to make sure the will of the people, we the people, gets accomplished.
▶ 2:16:44Well, my personal view is that if you were to pass the ISA bill tomorrow, you just sent a very clear and compelling signal y to the chief justice did that he had better get out of lecturing the Congress and get into managing the judiciary or he's going to be facing a real crisis of the system and a real erosion of judicial authority. Well said. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:17:13The judicial branch in our country plays a critical role in checks and balances which is the constitution mandates. Our president doesn't understand that or respect it. And in my opinion he accordingly is the one doing the overreach not the judiciary. He overreaches with birthright citizenship which is in the constitution. And he can't with an executive order, a press release with a nice stationery and a little sign on it, overrule the Constitution.
▶ 2:17:43Nor can he declare a third party, a third term for himself, which he'll probably do eventually, that he can run for office again. He can't do that. Um this man is abusing the office of the president by signing executive orders in so many areas uh against the Congress for passing appropriations bill which he doesn't respect and by destroying agencies created by Congress which he can't do because they're independent like the Peace Institute.
▶ 2:18:13It's an independent but he's gone in and taken it over. Uh he's also gone after lawyers and law firms and it's no mystery why he did it. Jenner and Block and William Wilmer Hail. Um they are two firms that have had attorneys with them. Andrew Wisman who worked at Jenner and Block and Robert Mueller who worked at Wilmer Hail who had cases against the president. To get into court you've got to have an attorney.
▶ 2:18:37And if attorneys are fearful of having their opportunities to inter act with the federal government, to enter federal buildings, to have clearances, they will be reluctant to take cases. That destroys the opportunity for the Justice Department, for the judiciary, for the third branch to work as a check and balance. You destroy it when you don't have somebody to give you entree into the courts. Professor Shaw, your testimony was was brilliant. Uh just ask you about uh a federal judge. Federal judge cannot institute a case, can they?
▶ 2:19:08Uh no, sir, they cannot. So, what they do is they they take what lawyers put before them and then they determine what it is. A case or controversy is brought to a federal court and a federal court can resolve it. They're not a self-starting body. But if lawyers are afraid to bring an action against the administration or the president, then the courts won't ever get a chance to do anything. Absolutely. And I think it is important to understand some of the attacks on lawyers and law firms as indirectly attacks on the judiciary.
▶ 2:19:33You know, as well as attacks on the ability of what causes the president may deem unpopular to secure representation or for litigation against the federal government to proceed. Um, so I think that all of those values are implicated in the attacks on lawyers and law firms. Do you remember some of the things President Trump said in his executive orders against some of these law firms about lawyers? Can you tell us like they were they're they're criminal and they're trying to destroy our country and they're trying to What are some of the other things he said?
▶ 2:19:59So, so the the the law firm the the executive orders sort of singling out and targeting law firms begin with sort of a recitation of specific representations of disfavored individuals or representations that law firms have taken on. Uh there are suggestion that the law firms are deceitful or dishonest um that they are committing fraud. Um but you know they're quite explicit the orders that it is the specific representations made by and viewpoints held by the attorneys that have given rise to the executive order.
▶ 2:20:29So I I think that's why the lawsuits have framed these uh orders as containing attacks on the right to counsel on the separation of powers on independent judges and on the first amendment. There are you know at least four or five I would say independent constitutional flaws with each of these executive orders. and they sounded like somebody like, you know, first the lawyers. First we get the lawyers. It was the most anti-awyer thing I've ever heard. I'm a member of the bar.
▶ 2:20:58I respect the bar and I understand its importance to the American juristprudence system and the government system at large. I'd like to yield one minute to Mr. Mosvitz. Thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding. It's so nice to see my Republican colleagues fight for to protect executive power, but they aren't interested in fighting to protect this body and legislative power. You know, Representative Gil from Texas filed impeachment proceedings against Judge Boseberg. It has 22 co-signers.
▶ 2:21:27He he's not here at the moment. He's probably filing impeachment proceedings against Lewis Brandeise. But Speaker Gingrich says that this is a cumbersome process. And Speaker Gingrich is absolutely an impeachment expert. Well, allow me to doge this cumbersome process for you, Speaker Gingrich. Why don't we just ask Chairman Isa or Chairman Jordan, when is the hearing on impeachment of of Judge Boseberg? When's the hearing? Give me a date. Give the American people a date. Oh, wait.
▶ 2:21:55Chairman Isis says that this is actually a political symbol and not actual legislation. So, it's a fake impeachment. When When are you going to tweet that out? That ought to be popular. I mean, we had a fake impeachment for the last two years. I mean, I hope Representative Gil isn't a comr. I mean, we got a Doge James Comr spending millions of dollars in two years on fake impeachments, but I guess that's what we do. We file fake impeachments now. That's what we had. I I I take back my time and I thank the gentleman for taking back his time.
▶ 2:22:25It's appropriate that on April Fool's Day that he discusses. Thank you. Uh and uh since the question was posed toward me, uh I'll take the liberty of saying that uh we take all bills that are referred to our committee seriously u in including that. And I would I would only say that be careful what you wish for. There will in fact undoubtedly be investigations of a number of judges, but we don't predetermine them in this committee.
▶ 2:22:53We don't denounce them when they're put in by a member. Uh we also don't accept them uh as anything other than something for our staff to look at. But I appreciate the gentleman's question. With that, we go to the gentle lady from Wyoming, the uh the senior member of the committee of the house from Wyoming, Miss Hagermanerman. The only Oh, that's in March.
▶ 2:23:20The Miami Herald reported on a team of former US officials in Venezuelans assisting the Trump administration with tracking tender duragra or TDA. They have focused on ties between TDA and the Maduro regime identifying 1,800 gang members sent to our country. Reportedly 300 received paramil paramilitary training in Venezuela and the regime has operational control over them.
▶ 2:23:46Information obtained by the team from police agencies in South America has resulted in the arrest of at least 800 TDA members or smaller affiliated entities. According to the article, TDA has been setting up a drug distribution system in our country and the individuals quote are not criminals sent to cause havoc. there are soldiers sent in an asymmetrical warfare operation against the United States. End quote.
▶ 2:24:13On March 15th, President Trump issued an EO invoking the Alien Enemies Act regarding the TDA invasion. The EO finds that TDA is perpetuating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TDA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction clandestine or otherwise of the M Maduro regime in Venezuela.
▶ 2:24:42Judge Boseberg of the DC District Court recently ordered the Trump administration to turn around removal flights bound for El Salvador carrying members of this Venezuelan terrorist group TDA. Judge Boseberg's temporary restraining order at first was limited to the named plaintiffs, but he later provisionally certified a class for quote all non-citizens in US custody who are subject to President Trump's order against TDA and its implementation. Mr.
▶ 2:25:09Larkin, what are the problems associated with the breadth of this order rather than it having uh being just applied to solely to the parties in front of it? There seem to be at least two uh issues. One is whether you I'm told I haven't seen the complaint, but I'm told that the complaint that was filed seeking relief was brought under the administrative procedure act. That's not an appropriate vehicle for this. It should be the federal habius corpus laws.
▶ 2:25:39Um but secondly, um if you're going to ser if you're going to grant classwide relief, you have to first properly certify a class. The Supreme Court has so ruled and has told the district courts that they have to do first the job of certifying the class and only then awarding class relief. In footnote one in Baxter versus I think it's pronounced Palmo, but don't hold me to that.
▶ 2:26:04Uh the Supreme Court re said the district court had gotten it wrong in that case for following the reverse order. So if that's what happened, what happens then is you're seeing some of the problems that can arise when a judge wants to stop an entirety of the government rather than award relief to one person because there are steps that you have to go through in order to certify a class. And to my knowledge, although like I said, I haven't followed that case.
▶ 2:26:33I don't know if those steps were followed here. My understanding is that you this is the first I've heard of it from you. So, well, and there's another problem associated with that as well. In the case involving TDA, the judges and other injunctions that have been issued, nationwide injunctions issued by these courts, they have not been requiring the party seeking the injunction to put up a bond.
▶ 2:26:56Even though rule 65 of the federal rules of civil procedure mandates that a party seeking a preliminary injunction or TTRO must provide security, a bond to cover potential costs and damages to the party who is wrongfully restrained or enjoined. In fact, such a bond is a is a condition precedent for an injunction to be valid.
▶ 2:27:18Uh, so in light of that, does this violation or failure to require the posting of a bond undermine, if not actually nullify, the legality of Judge Boowberg's Boseberg's uh order?
▶ 2:27:32I have to say, and it's going to sound like begging off, but I'm not trying to, that I haven't researched that effect in this sort of context, in part because I'm not sure what how you set a bond uh in a case like this where what you're talking about is essentially relief that should be granted under the habius corpus laws.
▶ 2:27:54And so to the extent there are separate procedures that you have to follow in a habius corpus action, I don't know to what extent that part of rule 65 would apply. So what I'd like to do is I would encourage you to read the uh opinion article in the Wyoming street or the Washington, excuse me, uh the Wall Street Journal from yesterday entitled Why Judge Boseberg's deportation order is legally invalid.
▶ 2:28:18And this individual, Daniel Huff, goes through the analysis of what is required under rule 65 for an injunction to be enforcable. And one one of the problems associated with the decision is the fact that no bond no bonds have been required in these injunctions. And not every provision in the federal rules of civil procedure automatically translates over to habius corpus. And I just don't know if that provision does. If it does, then it has to be addressed.
▶ 2:28:46If it doesn't, then you have uh a different set of rules that you follow. Would the gentle lady gentle lady yield for one second? Sure. Would your question would your question be for all of the these cases, not just the one that you were speaking of? That is correct. For all of the injunctions that have been issued in these decisions around the country. And I also would ask unanimous time of the time is expire. I would I would ask unanimous consent to submit two articles for the record. Three articles.
▶ 2:29:15One is the Wall Street Journal article. Another one is the article I was referencing earlier as the US tracks susp suspected Venezuelan gang members. A look at a group that's helping and the uh executive order issued by President Trump. Without objection, so ordered. We now go to the gentle lady from Washington, Miss Japal for 5 minutes. Japal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 2:29:36Um, perhaps my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should consider that the very reason that Donald Trump has faced more nationwide injunctions than Joe Biden is precisely because Trump is grabbing unprecedented power from Congress and from the judiciary. Power that is not accorded to any president because we do not have kings in this country.
▶ 2:29:59If you try to eliminate birthright citizenship, jail people for free speech, slashf funding and fire people, and eliminate departments that are actually established by Congress, if you try to use Cold War era regulations to do mass deportations, then yeah, you're going to get nationwide injunctions. So maybe if you don't like the injunctions, stop doing the illegal stuff.
▶ 2:30:22The argument that the judiciary has run a muk is a very convenient political argument that's being weaponized to eliminate the fundamental checks and balances that our founders put in place to protect the independence of the judiciary from the political branches of government. If there are threats to the independence of the judiciary, they come when unelected billionaires try to buy court seats. They come when there is no ethics code that stops justices from being captured by special interests.
▶ 2:30:52The lower courts have played a critical role in this independence from political systems, delivering results that people from both parties have liked and disliked. During the Obama and Biden administration, lower courts did rule against the government in cases dealing with student debt relief and DACA. Courts have also ruled in favor of guns, religious liberty, and abortion restrictions. Democrats may not have liked those rulings, but we did not simply try to eliminate those courts or impeach those judges.
▶ 2:31:23And did you ever hear Republicans complaining about the judiciary when those favorable rulings were coming about? Of course not. One of the most important rule roles of an independent judiciary is upholding civil rights and liberties. The judiciary is often the last line of defense for protecting the vulnerable from the powerful and the minority from the majority. This is particularly true when it comes to immigration.
▶ 2:31:47Last night, we learned that the Trump administration mistakenly deported a father with protected legal status. This is the latest amongst numerous questionable deportations, including men being deported for having tattoos for autism awareness and the names of close family members. Trump's basis for these deportations is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
▶ 2:32:11This statute authorizes the president to detain and deport non-citizens when there is quote a declared war or an invasion or predatory incursion end quote by a quote foreign nation or government. Professor Shaw, could you briefly explain why the courts have determined why there is no appropriate basis for Trump to invoke the Alien Enemies Act?
▶ 2:32:35Um well I should say it's all in a very preliminary posture but Judge Boseberg issued his initial temporary restraining order essentially on the grounds that individuals who were subject to this deportation on the basis of this invocation of a you know 1798 statute that has been used three times in our history needed some opportunity to contest or present evidence before being sent to prisons in El Salvador.
▶ 2:33:00So this was just to be really clear, Judge Boseberg did not order anyone's release inside the United States. Everyone is able to stay in US custody. It was simply a determination that the basic demands of due process were not suspended by the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. And why are those due process rights so important in the immigration context in particular?
▶ 2:33:21Well, well, so I I I think that the example that you gave, Congresswoman, of of this reporting we saw last night of an individual who appears to have been incorrectly seized and sent to a prison, um, you know, maybe there was some other basis, but not the specific Alien Enemies Act invocation basis for deporting him. Uh, makes clear that the stakes kind of couldn't be higher than in the immigration context, especially if we're talking about not just detention, but deportation and expulsion.
▶ 2:33:47Um, so you know, due process protects us from being summarily deprived of life, liberty, or property. And you know, those interests in some ways are at their highest when we're talking about the government taking custody and potentially expelling an individual. And this law was used, wasn't it? It was invoked by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to detain 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II. That's right. It was part of the basis of the detention and internment of Japanese Americans. And so these actions don't just affect foreigners.
▶ 2:34:16What's at stake are constitutional rights for all Americans. Can you explain to any American who might be watching this hearing why they should be concerned about their rights given what the Trump administration is doing? Right. I I mean I think that the constitution is the only thing standing between any of us and being summarily placed on a plane and judges are the ones who are often in the position of enforcing those constitutional rights.
▶ 2:34:41So this is not about protecting a an other right this is about protecting all of us and if the administration is not duty bound to respect the basic requirements of the constitution with respect to these individuals it's not clear why it's duty bound to respect those rights as to any of us. I think that is a very important um point and I think we should be focusing our attention on how to best preserve our independent judiciary not delegitimize it. Mr.
▶ 2:35:08Chairman, I'd like to submit an article uh seek unanimous consent to submit an article for the record. This is from the Atlantic. An administrative error sends a Maryland father to a Salvadorian prison. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Klene, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to briefly yield at the start to the chairman of the full committee for a few seconds. Thank the gentleman for yielding.
▶ 2:35:33Professor Shaw, should Congress add four associate justices to the United States Supreme You know, I I think that Congress certainly has the power. I think you support add you support packing the court. Look, anything Congress does with respect to the court should be responsive to current conditions. So, there have been moments when I thought that Congress should take seriously changing the size of the Supreme Court. So, I'm I I certainly has the power to do it. That's what I say. I yield back.
▶ 2:35:59and uh and and find it interesting that in in to be responsive uh to current events that that you would support adding four justices Supreme Court uh court packing essentially uh when many on the other side uh saw rulings that they didn't like over the past several years. Their response was to pack the court. Mr.
▶ 2:36:22Speaker, do you consider it appropriate to add uh four members to the Supreme Court when decisions come down that people don't like? Let me say first, if I might, that hearing a Democrat talk about fake impeachments after the two fake impeachments of President Trump, which were repudiated by the Senate, I thought it was a lovely moment of historical awareness. Um the look, the Supreme Court's been at nine since 1869.
▶ 2:36:50It's it's before that it differed at times. Um but there's never been a serious effort. Roosevelt tried and as powerful and popular as he was, the country has an instinctive sense of stability at that level. So I I would say barring something extraordinary. Uh you you know the court the Supreme Court again supreme in terms of the uh article three not supreme in terms of the country.
▶ 2:37:18I think the Supreme Court is best dealt with carefully and cautiously. And it evolves over time. It's not it's not always what conservatives like. It's not always what liberals like, but over time it has been a relatively stable part of our system. Now that we have Republican majority in the House, Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican president, I wonder how those same Democrats feel about adding four new justices to the Supreme Court right now. Probably wouldn't be uh so excited about it. But uh M.
▶ 2:37:46Romero, let me ask you since you were so directly affected by Trendy Ara. Um, are these gang members the kind of folks Americans want in our neighborhoods? Are they Were they good neighbors when you lived near them? No, they were not good neighbors. I I read your testimony. It's shocking what went on in your neighborhood. How long did you and your community suffer from this invasion? U, my husband and I lived in the apartments for four years.
▶ 2:38:16For the last, you know, year and a half, it was pretty bad. Now, if you went around an apartment complex with a rifle trying to kick in people's doors, you'd expect police would act swiftly to take you into custody, right? Yes. Anytime someone calls 911, I expect the police to come swiftly. Yeah. That's the reason we have law enforcement to respond to situations like that. That wasn't that wasn't my experience with the local police. Then your your cries for help went unanswered. Yes, very.
▶ 2:38:47And unfortunately, federal judges seem to have taken up those same talking points um and taken issue with President Trump's administration calling what's happening in communities like yours an invasion. They instead just call it a migration. Did it feel like a migration to you? It felt like there were large groups of people moving onto the property to destroy it and cause me harm. It caused many of my neighbors harm. felt more like a textbook definition of an of an invasion.
▶ 2:39:18Yeah. Nobody nobody made sure my rights were protected. Do you think what message does it send uh when a district judge in DC says the president can't take action to remove these violent criminals and invaders from your community? I think the president was asked very specifically to take care of this problem and promises made and promises kept. But I feel like he is keeping his promise to me.
▶ 2:39:44Do you think that these injunctions will make the problem worse in your community as it emboldens criminals and handcuffs law enforcement? I think all sanctuary city policies are a mistake and they're harmful to regular citizens. And there's no one in here fighting for my rights. Well said. Thank you. I yield back. Gentlemen, yield. I yield to the chairman. Well done, Mr. Larkin. There's been a question that I've been begging to ask. uh national injunctions.
▶ 2:40:15If a judge in in Hawaii were to rule on something, what prevents shopping for a a declaratory judgment on the opposite end of the country, maybe in Texas by the administration and that judge ruling that there is no such injunction, ruling the opposite and creating a constitutional challenge as we currently have it.
▶ 2:40:36Well, you put your finger on one of the great challenges because due process has to assume that there's a balance and an honesty and an integrity in the very system. And when you start getting into an ability to shopper and this by the way this is true for a whole different zone in terms of uh civil litigation and trial lawyers and lots of things you could talk about where the system is crumbling because it is so clearly no longer balanced by due process and a pursuit of
▶ 2:41:06justice. Uh, and I think that it is a danger. And frankly, again, I think we're either going to eliminate nationwide injunctions or the Supreme Court's kind of going to find a way to make them immediately a national question, not a single district court. Chester, if we don't do something like that, I think the system is in real trouble. Thank you. Gentleman from Colorado. I thank the chairman. I want to thank all the witnesses. Uh, I have the privilege of representing Colorado in the in the Congress.
▶ 2:41:36And so I want to say to Mr. Romero, welcome to Washington and thank you for being here. Uh Mr. Gingrich, I wasn't planning on talking about impeachment, but I just have to spend a minute on it given the statement you made just a minute ago. I think you said, if I'm not mistaken, you said the the two impeachments against President Trump were repudiated in the Senate. Is that that the right word you used? Yeah. Okay. And would you describe the impeachment that you initiated against President Clinton 35 some odd years ago and the Senate's reaction to that impeachment in the same way?
▶ 2:42:06Well, it failed, which is part of why Jefferson thought impeachment was not a realistic possibility. Well, I I I would just simply suggest to you that because I served as an impeachment manager in the second impeachment trial against President Trump following the attack on our nation's capital. And in that impeachment, as you well know, of all the presidential impeachments, which I suspect you've studied, seven Republican senators did something that no senators had done in the history of our republic, which is voted to convict a president of their own political party. So I I think that is a far cry from repudiation.
▶ 2:42:35I understand that it didn't meet the constitutional threshold for success. I actually President Johnson had the same experience in I believe 1868. I I will just again simply say to you that unlike the impeachment but no one that's inaccurate Republican uh senators, excuse me, with respect to the impeachment trial of 1868 against President Johnson, that is not accurate.
▶ 2:43:01It's the first time in American history in which senators of an opposing political party voted to convict a president, but of their same party. But I digress. Want to talk to you about a phrase you used. I think this is accurate. You called it a judicial coup d'eta. Is that am I right? That's correct. Okay.
▶ 2:43:21And you would describe, you know, 14 federal judges appointed by a president of an opposing political party issuing nationwide injunctions against a president's executive orders as a judicial coup d'eta. I I would describe the wave of decisions in the last seven weeks deliberately designed to slow down, unwind, and block. Sure. The president has clearly an effort by a group judges.
▶ 2:43:52I hear I hear you. What I'm asking you, again, I don't think I'm mischaracterizing your testimony. 14 federal judges all of an opposing political part that is to say 14 federal judges appointed by a president of an opposing political party issuing nationwide injunctions right against the president's policies in your view would be a judicial coup d'eta depends on it depends on how long the time sounds like it depends on the president Mr. Gingrich because the president I'm describing is President Biden.
▶ 2:44:19I know during his tenure, 14 federal judges issued injunctions against policies that he pursued via executive order. How many of them were appointed by Republican presidents? Do you know? No. 100%. All of them. Well, you're making my case. I'm making your case. What's fascinating, Mr. Kingrich is I didn't hear much from you about judicial coup d'etas when President Biden's policies being rejected by federal judges across the country. It is very convenient now.
▶ 2:44:49No. Lo and behold that that you take great issue and you describe it as a judicial coup d'eta when I didn't hear these words two years ago. Had had the judiciary committee invited me in during the administration. I would have been glad to say well I regret that chairman Jordan I don't approve of. I regret that Chairman Jordan didn't issue an invitation to you when, as Mr.
▶ 2:45:10Massie articulated, policy after policy, executive order after executive order issued by President Biden were being rejected by federal courts subject to nationwide injunctions across the land. Apparently, you were just waiting to come testify in front of the committee to call that a judicial coup d'eta against President Biden. That's what it sounds like. That's why I believe any kind of nationwide injunction should immediately go to the Supreme Court to be validated as a nationwide activity. I don't believe district judges I understand that alternative.
▶ 2:45:40I understand that you've provided that particular alternative is something for this committee to consider. Your written testimony indicates far more significant and structural changes. You know, you you referenced the Judiciary Act of 1802 and this notion that the Congress can abolish district courts and the rest and and you seem to be suggesting those as remedies that we ought to consider. In any event, I just want to talk I know I'll ask the chairman to indulge me since I know he's indulged other members.
▶ 2:46:09Uh you have talked about and I'll just read from an article here. There's a long tradition which has only been broken really starting in the late 1950s with this crazy idea that lawyers and judges are superior to the rest of us and they get to define everything, That's correct. And you're referencing what case? Cooper versus Aaron. Cooper versus Aaron. That case was a desegregation case, right?
▶ 2:46:30Yeah, but that wasn't the point of I understand that this was a this was a case in which the state of Arkansas was seeking the ability to not comply with Brown versus Board of Education in desegregating schools in Arkansas. It had nothing to do, by the way, Speaker Gingrich, with presidential power. It had to do with the supremacy of the Constitution and the ability of states to respect the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
▶ 2:46:57There are a variety of cases long before Cooper in which the Supreme Court has opined on the constitutionality of a president's actions. Youngsttown being a great example. It is convenient that for whatever reason you've landed on these 1950s desegregation cases as the the inception in your view of the Supreme Court's tyranny as you describe it. I suppose I I I don't think that that's consistent with the values of the American people.
▶ 2:47:25It's the reason why f Republican jurists, Michael Mccasece, a very distinguished federal jurist as you know, has attacked your ideas in the past. I think you'd concede that. I yield back. And I continued indulgence. I would let the speaker finish. All I will say is the reference to that is from a book by a liberal jud, a liberal lawyer who said specifically that it's Cooper versus Aaron where with no reference to the case.
▶ 2:47:54The Supreme Court decides to issue a statement that it is clear that we are supreme and they're not talking about we're supreme over Arkansas. We are the supreme deciders. And that is explicitly false and and historically wrong. And it's what Jefferson was so furious about in 1800 because he did not believe judges had the ability to overrule the American I thank the gentleman. We we now go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
▶ 2:48:24Roy. I thank my colleague from California. Uh, Miss Romero, you have testified about your experience in Aurora, Colorado. Um, as we talked about at the beginning, I came to Aurora and visited with you and others that were impacted uh by what you were dealing with. Um, to be clear, you felt terrorized in your home, in your apartment. We have an order. Mr. Mr. Chairman, can we If you have conversations, please take him off the de. Right.
▶ 2:48:52Gentleman's recognized with all respect to my colleagues and I noticed Mr. Romero who was who was bothered by u you know we're talking about people's lives Americans lives m Romero your life true yes or no in short answer was your life turned upside down by the existence of trend at aua uh in your home in your apartment complex in Aurora Colorado absolutely and continues to be and people were in danger American citizens Americans were in danger I was in danger my family was in danger I couldn't get my grandchildren
▶ 2:49:22to even come visit it was dangerous over there. The police didn't want to respond. The local government in Aurora did not want to acknowledge. There was continued push back and gaslighting. And I mentioned earlier when I opened up this the extent to which we had a young woman here who was testifying last year in this committee, Alexis Nang, whose daughter Jocelyn was murdered at the hands of Trende Aagua members in Houston, Texas. Is that acceptable? It's absolutely not acceptable. And so let me ask you this.
▶ 2:49:53Should TDA gang members or MS-13 gang members uh be removed and deported from the United States of America? Let me first ask Miss Shaw, Professor Shaw, should they be removed? The president certainly has the authority to make that determination. The question is, how do we know who is a member of these bodies? Should the So, these members should be removed. These TDA gang members, MS-13 gang members, you're posing a danger to the American people and citizens should be removed from the United States of America. I am a scholar.
▶ 2:50:22I'm not going to take a policy position on how immigration should be should be enfor issues all the time. I'm I opine on the law and the president has certain authority significant authority to enforce the immigration laws, but the Constitution is supreme. The president has significant authority as the commander-in-chief to protect the United States. Of course, M. Romero, do you think these TDA gang members and MS-13 gang members and other dangerous individuals should be removed from the United States so they do not pose a harm to American citizens? Every last one of them.
▶ 2:50:51And given that, um, do you believe it was appropriate for the president to remove those that were removed that, uh, Judge Boseberg decided to from his perch in the district court in the District of Columbia, stop or attempt to stop a plane leaving Haringen, Texas to remove said individuals because this judge in DC decided to assert that he had jurisdiction over that plane that the commander-in-chief was using to remove these dangerous individuals.
▶ 2:51:21from our country. Do you think the president was right or the judge was right? I think the president was absolutely right. If you can describe them as illegal and an immigrant to this country and a criminal all at the same time, they need to be go they need to go out of our country. Much has been made of this individual from Maryland. To be clear, this is an individual that by all accounts was a member and affiliated with MS13, the danger in Maryland. I will not.
▶ 2:51:48This individual was affiliated with MS-13, had an order of removal against him, was here illegally in the United States of America and was put on a plane, a separate plane by the way, from the one under the alien enemies removal uh because he was on an order of removal.
▶ 2:52:04Now the fact is I think my colleagues on other side of the aisle would like the American people to believe that it is more important for us to be concerned about the specific mechanics of an individual illegal alien affiliated with MS-13 endangering the American people and whether or not the intricacies of due process about what claims that guy was making to alleged asylum.
▶ 2:52:27by the way, asylum because he was afraid of what might happen to him at the hands of the gangs he affiliated with if he's sent back home to El Salvador. That that would somehow trump the extent to which Ms. Romero or Alexis Nungare would be the ones that are put down at the hands of dangerous gangs making your life upside down as an American citizen. Do you think that's fair, Mr. Romero? It is not fair and I have rights, too.
▶ 2:52:55and we we weren't asked permission to allow these unvetted criminals into our country and nobody stopped them once we sounded the alarm. Something has to be now. Uh Mr. Speaker, um thank you for being here. Uh we've talked a little bit about what we might be able to do and you talked about the fast track to the court and so forth. Um I I remain of the belief and I think you know we we've passed legislation out here and I think it'd be important to send that to the Senate. I agree with you to send a message to the Supreme Court. I would pause and see if you agree.
▶ 2:53:25I think we need to to clarify for the record for both sides of the aisle in response to my friend from Colorado's commentary that we had a wakeup call for our Democratic friends when suddenly there were some judges in the Northern District of Texas who were saying, "Wait a minute, we don't think some of these ridiculous rulings about men being in locker rooms in with our girls in schools should somehow be okay because radical administrators under the Biden administration were allowing it to occur." Do you agree that having ability to say that you're not going to have a nationwide injunction at
▶ 2:53:55the hands of one judge, but then have a process by which you can have a nationwide injunction either through a three judge panel at the appellet or fasttrack to the court? To clarify for the record, we're saying that's not a partisan exercise that we're saying that no one judge should make that there should be a process though and there are times when a nationwide injunction does need to occur to stop administrators from making law. The gentleman's time is expired, but you may answer.
▶ 2:54:18Well, whether it is a liberal or a conservative, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, the very concept of the distribution of power in the American system would indicate that no single person should have the power to dictate to the entire country what they personally happen to believe that week. And I think that we need to demystify the process of judgeship, recognize that it's occupied by humans. There's an amazing passage from Jefferson where he says, "Look, these are people.
▶ 2:54:49They're suffer they're subject to exactly the same problems as politicians or anybody else, and you can't put them up on a pedestal. So, you've got to have a system which blocks power from being exploited by the personality or the idiosyncrasies of one person imposing on 335 million people." And I think that what what uh Chairman Isa has brought out is a very useful first step.
▶ 2:55:15I as I said earlier, I think this the chief justice could visiate this entire issue if he took the right steps. But I think we as a people cannot allow random individuals arrogate to themselves being alternative presidents and imposing their personal will on the entire country. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back. Thank you. The gentle lady from Vermont is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Given that Mr.
▶ 2:55:39Roy went over by um almost two minutes, I would like to um give the ranking member a minute before I begin. The gentleman you yielding a minute to the gentleman. Thank you. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you to the gentle lady from Vermont. Um I just want to be clear about this. First of all, uh I want to align myself with members on both sides who have um found your testimony, Ms.
▶ 2:56:06Romero, very important and um very disturbing. And we all agree that gang members should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and if they're here uh unlawfully in the country, they should be deported. But the idea that that should become the basis for a mass roundup and deportation of people who've never been charged with anything, who have no criminal record, um, strikes me as absolutely preposterous.
▶ 2:56:35And the administration at least was willing to come forward to say, "Okay, they have the wrong person. This was this was a mistake to have him." But now, say Lavi, I suppose he's stuck in El Salvador under a dictator who throws people into a prison that engages in torture. And my colleagues would rather go all the way down to the end of the field with Donald Trump rather than admit that that is a blatant violation of American due process and all of our constitutional values.
▶ 2:57:05I mean, that's just extraordinary to me that members of the House Judiciary Committee would be taking that position. That's a very serious problem. Now, Judge Boseberg, who's a conservative judge who was appointed to the bench by President Bush, correctly determined that the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 doesn't apply. It had only been used before in that original Alien Cedition Act period, World War I and World War II. It is for wartime.
▶ 2:57:30It is for the deporting of foreign nationals who belong to enemy states or if there's a military invasion of the country and it doesn't apply. So, he said, "We've got to use the Immigration Naturalization Act." But that requires a due process hearing. But that's too much for my colleagues who can evce no sympathy at all for this father of a 5-year-old with autism who has been sent to another country. Now, I don't know because we're not a criminal court whether he's done anything.
▶ 2:57:57But I do know based on court records, he has no criminal record. He's not been convicted of anything. And suddenly they're saying, well, he's a member of MS-13. He had an asylum petition, which I'll enter for the record, which showed that he was actually being harassed and persecuted by a criminal gang, which was why he originally came to America.
▶ 2:58:16And the court determined although his application for asylum was timebarred, nonetheless, he has established past persecution based on a protected ground, and he has established the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution. So maybe you guys know something about the case. I don't know. But that's why I believe in due process because I think a court should be hearing this. I thank the gentle lady uh for her indulgence and her kindness. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:58:41Um I've heard the suggestion from some of our witness witnesses today that because President Trump eaked out a narrow win. He should have the right to do whatever he wants with no checks on his power. And I find this deeply disturbing. As a former civics teacher, it feels like we failed somewhere along the way. Presumably, we've all had some basic civics education. And I'm hearing a shocking misunderstanding of how the Constitution works.
▶ 2:59:12Professor Shaw, thanks so much for being here. Let's briefly reestablish the fundamentals here. We have three branches of government. Correct. Correct. Executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Correct. Correct. And under our constitutional order, the head of the executive branch, the president, generally must obey orders by judges. Correct. Absolutely. And one of the ways Congress oversees judges and the president is through impeachment or removal from office for violating the law or other egregious behavior.
▶ 2:59:42Is that correct? Treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanor. Correct. Thank you. But Congress does not remove judges because of a disagreement with how they ruled. Is that correct? That is correct. And why is that? Judicial independence requires the judges not be constantly afraid that they will be removed from office if they issue a decision that is unpopular or that is, you know, opposed to the interests of the political uh powers or that is that runs against the political winds.
▶ 3:00:09Judicial independence requires judges be confident and secure in their rulings and not fear the consequences of those rulings other than reversal on appeal. That's a consequence judges can and should fear, but that really is the primary consequence. And as you've said, this has a chilling effect. This entire presidency so far is about having a chilling effect on the way that government works. The House must not take up impeachment resolutions based on anything but serious misconduct or illegal behavior.
▶ 3:00:39Yet, Republicans, including people on this committee who claim to respect the Constitution, have introduced impeachment resolutions against judges because they don't like how judges did their job. They've introduced seven impeachment resolutions so far. I'm sure there are more to come. Trump and Musk have publicly called for the impeachment of judges that they just don't like.
▶ 3:01:03Just by introducing these impeachment resolutions, my colleagues have attacked and weakened the independent judiciary. Does a weakened judiciary, Professor Shaw, endanger Americans constitutional rights? The courts are a key guarantee. The gentle lady's time is expired, but I will give indulgence. You may answer. I apologize. I didn't see. Sorry. Um, I think that an independent judiciary has been and continues to be a key guarantor of all of our rights.
▶ 3:01:32And so anything that threatens judicial independence is a threat to all of us. Thank you, Miss Shaw. And I will just say in closing, I taught my students for years, the Constitution requires that we respect the rule of law and not the rule of one man. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, gentle lady. With that, we the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Democrats love to talk about democracy. They claim Donald Trump is a threat to it.
▶ 3:02:02They say actions taken by his administration undermine it. But let's be clear, Democrats have twisted and weaponized the word democracy into nothing more than a partisan talking point. So let me tell you what democracy is not. Democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. When 77 million Americans cast their vote for a president and when every major swing state breaks in his favor and when the electoral college delivers a clear mandate, it is not democracy.
▶ 3:02:28when a district court judge overturns the will of the American people and usurps the constitutional authority of the commanderin-chief. Full stop. President Trump along with Tom Hman, CBP, and ICE are doing an outstanding job securing our homeland. And in just a few months, we have seen historic progress on border enforcement. Gotaways are down, arrests are up, and deportations are finally happening. But now, we are beginning to see that progress stall. And why? Because of the tyranny of the minority.
▶ 3:02:57and activist judges targeting immigration executive orders. It is not the role, nor is it the authority of a single judge to undermine the commander-in-chief's constitutional responsibility to repeal an invasion. And make no mistake about it, this is an invasion. 20 million people entering our country illegally for the past four years is in fact the quintessential definition of an invasion. It's not just a border crisis. We are fighting. We are fighting cartels like Trend Aaru and and MS-13.
▶ 3:03:27You see, groups like these in coordination with the Chinese Communist Party are flooding our country with fentanyl. It is not just a judge a a a crisis here on drugs. It is chemical warfare. And fentanyl is not a simple drug. It's also poison. In my conversations with Texas sheriffs in the front lines, there's absolutely no confusion about what's happening. The mission of these cartels backed by the CCP is simple.
▶ 3:03:53And they told me this, and I quote, "Kill the gringo." And that's the reality. And President Trump is using his power and his constitutional power given to him by the American public to stop this from happening. Mr. Romero, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate your testimony. Earlier, you went as far as saying publicly that in Kla Harris's America, every state is a border state and every community is under threat.
▶ 3:04:21You also said after Trendy Ara invaded your apartment complex, you reached out to local media and several NOS's in your community, begging for help, begging for help, and you were turned away because there were no government programs that grant citizens protected status. Have a question for you, ma'am. Do you feel more or less safe now that President Trump is back in the White House? More. And why do you say that? Because he's getting rid of the criminals that were keep were harassing all of us.
▶ 3:04:48Do you think that President Trump is is is putting the priorities of America and the average American citizen above the priorities of the cartels and those people that want to destroy this nation? Yes. because these people were causing immediate harm to citizens, not some imaginary harm that could happen one day. I mean, if you had if you had a message for the American people today, what would it be? This is a real threat to our communities.
▶ 3:05:16Not just mine, not an isolated incident, not um just regulated to one building. These are all over the United States. Um, apparently people have forgotten 9/11. Um, there are dangerous criminals in our country and if we don't start getting them out now, then when after they victimize someone just like me, I fought for this country.
▶ 3:05:45There are many people this room that fought for this country. Um, I flew 55 combat missions in Baghdad in Apache helicopter because I do not want to see animals in our country terrorize my fellow Americans. That's what we took an oath to do. As sitting here in the halls of Congress, it is also our responsibility to protect the American citizen first. For the record, as somebody has deployed all over this world, no other country operates like this. None.
▶ 3:06:12You cannot tell me a country that would allow 20 million people to enter their country illegally and their country do absolutely nothing about it. And for the record, this is the greatest country in the world. That's why there's 20 million people trying to enter it illegally. So therefore, we bear an even greater responsibility to keep these animals from entering our country to protect you, the American public. That's our job. President Trump won and he was given a mandate for that very reason. He promised to protect us and put our priorities first. It is just that simple.
▶ 3:06:42I understand my colleagues on the left may disagree with this to a certain extent. But quite frankly, the mandate was already given to us. And ma'am, you're sitting here right now because you are terrorized by the very animals that had no business being in our country in the first place. I'll let you answer this last question. Ma'am, as we move forward, what would you like us to do to protect you? Briefly, please. Stop wasting tax dollars trying to interrupt him and stop him from what he's doing.
▶ 3:07:10do something to protect the people who elected you and put you in your spots to look down and decide what happens to the rest of us. Thank you, ma'am. I get back to the remainder of my time. Gentle lady from North Carolina, Miss Ross, for 5 minutes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. This is an extremely important issue for our country and for the future of our country.
▶ 3:07:38But let me be clear before I ask my question. Donald Trump's contempt for the judiciary is not new. He has fought civil cases against him because of real estate deals and people he hasn't paid. He's fought victims that he has sexually assaulted and he has been convicted of sexually assaulting.
▶ 3:08:02His disrespect for the judiciary is based on his disrespect for anybody who doesn't let him do whatever he wants whenever he wants. And he is very dangerous right now because he is the president of the United States of America. And we are seeing him treat the people of the United States of America the same way he treated those poor contractors he never paid.
▶ 3:08:30the same way he treated women who he sexually assaulted, he is doing the same thing to the United States of America. So, Professor Shaw, on February 9th, Donald Trump told reporters that no judge, quote, should be allowed to rule against his administration's unconstitutional changes to how our government operates. And the next day, Vice President J. D. advance posted on X.
▶ 3:09:00Jud judges aren't allowed to control the executive branch's legitimate power. Just to be clear, does the president decide what issues judges get to rule on in under our constitution? Um, no.
▶ 3:09:18really since you know Marberry versus Madison 1803 judges and the Supreme Court right sitting at the top of the federal judiciary have had the final word on the meaning of the constitution and the laws and the consistency of laws or executive action with the constitution. So in our system it has been the courts and not the president who have had the final word. Thank you for that.
▶ 3:09:38Um so I am going to quote um fourth circuit judge Michael Ludig who I can testify no liberal I um had a case in front of him he was a tough customer in the fourth circuit. He was appointed by uh George HW Bush and he recently noted in an op-ed for the New York Times, quote, "A country without an independent judiciary is not one in which any of us should want to live, except perhaps Mr.
▶ 3:10:07Trump while he resides in the White House. Trump has railed against the federal judiciary for years, as I said in my opening, and especially now that his administration is losing in courts nationwide.
▶ 3:10:21So, Professor Shaw, what could Congress do to stand up against Trump's attacks on the judiciary to ensure that it remains functioning, independent, and co-equal in our system of governance? Well, you know, I certainly don't think resolutions of impeachment for no other reason than rulings that, you know, members disagree with are constructive from the perspective of preserving judicial independence.
▶ 3:10:51I mean, one thing that I would imagine that bipartisan support could, you know, easily rally behind is judicial security. Right? We are in a moment in which we have read about uh the US Marshall Service concern about heightened levels of threats to federal judges. Um when there was an actual threat against Justice Kavanaaugh in 2022 on a bipartisan basis, security for Supreme Court justices was increased. Um but I I I'm not sure that we've seen anything to that effect now.
▶ 3:11:16So shoring up judicial independence at a moment where frankly there are not a lot of other functioning checks on the executive branch is to my mind critically important and you know maybe that's one way this this body could devote itself to doing that.
▶ 3:11:30Um, and then, um, going back to the impeachment issue that my colleague from Vermont discussed, if Trump is successful in getting judges impeached in the House, I don't think he would be successful um, with the final decision in the Senate, is he allowed to demand that a judicial nominee promise not to rule against him or his administration if he under his appointment power.
▶ 3:11:58You know, there's nothing in the Constitution that speaks to that one way or another, but it is certainly a very established tradition, bipartisan and long-standing, that presidents do not secure commitments, in particular with respect to particular rulings from nominees they are considering. Um, you know, certainly the Senate in its advice and consent role could seek to enforce that long-standing principle by asking nominees if they have been, you know, asked or have given any kinds of assurances.
▶ 3:12:24But it would be wildly inconsistent with our practice for a president to seek such assurance from a nominee. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Does does a does the ranking member have a unanimous consent request? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is um from March 31, 2025. The makeup artist that Donald Trump deported under the Alien Enemies Act from the Atlantic. Without objection. So ordered.
▶ 3:12:58the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Guten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Miss Miss Shaw, earlier you you said that you worried that some of the intent of these actions um will have a chilling effect to disincentivize the taking on of clients and that the the legal system we have requires lawyers to take on unpopular clients. Would you expand on that please?
▶ 3:13:25So you know lawyers the the idea that even individuals charged with crimes are entitled to counsel and to vigorous representation in their defense regardless of what they may have done is actually a core kind of belief pillar of our legal system. And so that's one example. Individuals even charged with serious crimes have a right to counsel. So I I guess one of the things that I struggle with is after the 2020 20 election.
▶ 3:13:53Uh one of the groups that comes to mind is the 65 project which is a legal activism campaign seeking to disbar and discredit Trump affiliated lawyers who worked on lawsuits supporting Trump's attempts uh to question the 2020 election. Uh they're a dark money group and I don't recall uh my colleagues or you uh speaking out against this. uh and in fact there were attorneys that were disbarred um for representing their client.
▶ 3:14:21Now sure there's folks in this room that didn't agree with them. Um but one of the things you said during that time was quote there need to be serious social, professional and reputational kinds of sanctions if we want to disincentivize this kind of conduct. And I think this kind of conduct is perhaps taking on a client that supports a belief that maybe is not popular.
▶ 3:14:42Uh, and I really hope that we'll get away from this lawfare and that's something that uh was prevalent over the last four years throughout this campaign and now we're seeing it from this judiciary. Uh, and I am disappointed in this judge, but I am happy we're having this discussion and I'll yield the balance of my time to Chairman Jordan. Oh, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
▶ 3:15:05Uh, some of the previous speakers on the other side have said, members on the other side have said attacks by President Trump, I think I got this right, attacks by President Trump on the judiciary are dangerous. They said criticism of judges weakens the judiciary. Uh, Mr. Larkin, have Democrats ever criticized the judiciary? Yes, sir. Can you give me an example that maybe comes to mind? I mean, I have several, but I want to know what what's what's one that comes to mind for you? Well, I guess the the best example in recently was the Supreme Court's decision uh in DOBS to overturn Row versus Wade.
▶ 3:15:35Yeah. Where like hundreds of churches and pro-life centers were attacked and firebombed and got all kinds of criticism coming from people that that that happened. How about this one? How about the uh the minority leader in the Senate said, "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanagh, you've released the whirlwind and you will pay the price." How about that one? You remember that one, Speaker Genrich, from Senator Schumer?
▶ 3:15:59Well, I think it's fair to say that the passion of the left when the court does the wrong thing probably is more professionally organized than any passion on the right. Uh and but look, I mean, Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court. He was a Democrat. Um there there's a long tradition in America that we're allowed to argue over the courts are not they're not temples. This is not a you know religious judicial system. It's a secular judicial system.
▶ 3:16:28Yeah, fair enough. And and look, we're going to criticize decisions all along. I just we're getting it one way. This goes both ways. Both sides have criticized the courts, criticized decisions. We're allowed to do that in this country. That's the way that's the way it works. Uh, Professor Shaw, do you do you think it was appropriate for what uh what Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer said on the steps of the Supreme Court when he said, "You will pay the price." Referencing two members, sitting members of the United States Supreme Court. I think he should have phrased it differently. I'm sure he feels the same way.
▶ 3:16:58What about the DOS leak? What do you think about that? And some of the comments that were made after that decision was leaked. You think that was good? You know, I I'm not sure what comments you're you're talking about the that there were very very sharp criticism of Justice Alto's opinion in DOS. Um I I think that's perfectly healthy. Yes.
▶ 3:17:17Uh I think we had a member said that there should be impeachment for the decisions that were that happened after the DOS decision there should be impeachment of one of the Supreme Court justices. A member of Congress said that. Do you think that's appropriate? You know impeachment rhetoric is something that we have seen from time to time. I guess I'm not categorically opposed to talking about it. I think introducing resolutions as we've seen has been a significant escalation. And of course it would depend on why.
▶ 3:17:44I mean, I think there there have there was serious discussion of impeachment of several sitting Supreme Court justices over ethics matters in the last few years. I don't think there's anything unhealthy about those discussions. Okay. It's okay to talk about impeaching Supreme Court justice. Okay. To add four associate justice to the Supreme Court and you had no problems with uh the comments made after the DOS leak. Is that your testimony? You know, I I I'm sorry. I'm not sure what specific comments you're talking about, but criticism of the substance of the DOS ruling, I have no problem with that. Okay, I yield back.
▶ 3:18:14The witnesses have been very kind and there are more people that want that kindness. So with that, we'll take a fivem minute recess. Please. Thank you.
▶ 3:28:42take our seats. We'll We have We've been informed that we're going to have a vote uh in about the next 15 or 20 minutes. And Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the speaker, all of us have to go vote. Like Pavlovian dogs, we will we will otherwise. I think you probably wrote about it, Mr.
▶ 3:29:17Speaker Committee will come to order. We now recognize the gentle lady from California for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. uh chair and ranking member. You know, the student tours have started back up here in the capitol and I was walking through the ratunda. I walked past a group of uh young kids from Ohio and the kids were listening to their teacher talk about George Washington and then I heard the teacher say that this is where we have all of our checks and balances. And I remember thinking to myself, well, only for a few months more.
▶ 3:29:48Uh and you talk about banning books. I was like, well, we might have to ban all of the books that talk about checks and balances because we won't have any at the rate this committee is going. So, in fourth grade, children are learning about civics, the three branches of government, uh the checks and balances of power between the different branches, the co-equal partnership between the executive and legislative, the independence of the judiciary. Not a new phenomenon.
▶ 3:30:16Article 3 judges were established 236 years ago in the Constitution with the lifetime tenure. And we could go back and I've heard it in this committee and talk about Marbury versus Madison, Py versus Ferguson, Dread Scott, but more recent is where I want to land. And I thank the chair for also bringing up some of these um rulings. We've had Bush vGore. We've had Citizens United. We've had Hobby Lobby. We've had Masterpiece Cake Shop. We've had the overturning of Roie Wade.
▶ 3:30:46And yes, all major wins hailed by the right. And in the aftermath of these rulings, even with the passion of the left, Mr. Speaker, the judicial institutions remained intact and bench officers were not excoriated or physically threatened. In fact, one US District judge, her son was killed.
▶ 3:31:04Um, but now we have an administration aggressively and unapologetically pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional and erasing the checks and balances of power by going after judges who do not side with Trump to the point that even Justice Roberts of Republican lore says it is inappropriate to impeach judges.
▶ 3:31:28And after all, he is part of the ultimate arbiter in this arena, which favors the Republican party with a 63 majority. So I'm asking myself, what is really going on? What is going on is we are setting a dangerous precedent by replacing judicial independence with judicial falty. Because if judges feel like they must follow a partisan ideology rather than independently interpret the law, then we as lawmakers are a shill in this charade.
▶ 3:31:57We do not make laws for ourselves to interpret. We make laws for judges to interpret and impose punishment to those who don't follow them. And what is sad is that all these decisions that Trump doesn't like are still appealable. So once again, what is going on? What is going on is instead of being a party that supports smaller government, Republicans are creating a farreaching leviathan, an insatiable chaotic monster of power.
▶ 3:32:25And once that locomotive starts going, you cannot put the brakes on. This judicial independence checks and balances have withstood 118 congresses and 46 presidencies. And somehow today we are supposed to be at some critical moment where we are told to believe we have to blow this thing up. And it makes me think about March Madness which is happening right now. These kids are playing their hearts out.
▶ 3:32:52They are trying to win and they are dealing with good calls and bad calls from referees. And not all calls are perfect, but they are still respected. No one says, "I didn't like that call. Go after the referee. Go after the system." And in fact, in organized sports, the most classless and unpalatable thing you can do is blame your loss on the referee or the blame the umpire for the outcome of the game or cheat.
▶ 3:33:17And five, ten years ago, we saw these parents attending these little league games and then violence was being committed. People were running onto the field attacking and assaulting the referees and it was distasteful. And now we are here with this court doing the same thing. The games do not work without officials and our system of justice does not work without judicial officials. And Justice Roberts says all we do is call balls and strikes.
▶ 3:33:45Judges like referees are a neutral party. You don't always like what they say. You might not always agree with their calls, but you have to respect the institution and the officials. And if you take away the one element that brings integrity with it, then the competition itself has no integrity. And then you have to ask the question, why do we even take an oath? Why do we even obey any of these laws?
▶ 3:34:10And what we have right now at this hearing with Trump's attack of the bench officers, with the threat to impeach judges, is the equivalent of parents rushing onto the field and trying to punch a judge in the face. It is disrespectful. It is unsemly. It is unprecedented and it is a disgrace. And with that, I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. We now go to the gentleman from California for his five minutes. Mr. Kylie. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:34:36Uh in our uh state of uh California, we have a governor who uh routinely attacks uh judges when he doesn't get uh his way. Uh often in in very harsh terms. Uh this being uh Governor Nuome uh of course uh after one ruling uh related to the second amendment uh Nuome threw a veritable temper tantrum calling a special uh press conference to lambast the judge calling him an extremist a stone cold ideologue a wholly funded subsidiary of the
▶ 3:35:06NRA and saying quote we need to call this federal judge out he will continue to do damage mark my words. Uh so it is curious uh hearing some of the comments about the appropriate uh relationship between the branches different branches of our government and the appropriate way to uh uh opine on judicial opinions.
▶ 3:35:27Uh with that in view and we've also of course seen examples brought up by uh chairman Jordan related to Chuck Schumer's comments on the steps of the Supreme Court that were rebuked by Chief Justice Roberts himself. So uh there certainly is I think it's appropriate uh as elected officials for us to express views uh on opinions of the judiciary uh but um the idea that uh you know uh one side has crossed a line but the other has not uh simply is not borne
▶ 3:35:57by the evidence. Now the the broader question before us today I think is related to this issue of checks and balances because uh I think we've reached a point where checks and balances have gotten a bit out of whack uh given developments that were not uh really on the minds of the founders related to the idea of nationwide injunctions which didn't exist in the early years of the public or really not until modern times and given the expansive growth of the federal judiciary
▶ 3:36:27uh such that now you have not just an issue of the judiciary uh impeding the president or impeding Congress but rather you have the ability of any individual judge to do so. As Justice Gorsuch has said the government's hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep parlaying a 94 to zero win in the district courts into a 12 to zero victory in the courts of appeal.
▶ 3:36:51So what um these nationwide injunctions have effectively done is not just shifted power from one branch to another but empowered uh the most extreme people within the judicial branch uh by saying that we're going to give one judge who can be essentially picked by the plaintiffs the ability uh to uh put a policy on hold.
▶ 3:37:11And what this creates is a sense of stasis and I think a sense of frustration and you see this during Republican and presidential administrations that the levers that we have to really uh have uh our uh citizenry exercise its will uh are getting increasingly difficult to pull. You know, we have u increasing hurdles to legislation, the ability to get over a filibuster in the Senate to change policy that way.
▶ 3:37:35And then even when the president is exercising his duly uh granted authority uh we have these nationwide injunctions that are uh putting the president's agenda into stasis. And so I do think there is uh an appropriate opportunity here to uh see if we need to reccalibrate the way uh checks and balances are functioning.
▶ 3:37:54And I think that on on top of that, it's a matter for the judiciary itself because the way our system generally works is you have different forums, you have different cases addressing similar issues involving different fact patterns. You develop a factual record, you have different judges that provide a different sort of analysis and then to the extent that they conflict, it percolates up the system. you have that record in place and you can then come to a decision uh that has the most uh fully considered uh process uh you know that uh within our system.
▶ 3:38:24Uh and these nationwide injunctions are shortcircuiting that entire process not allowing for uh the merits of an issue to be duly considered and simply giving one particular judge often on the extreme end of the distribution uh full say on the matter. So uh Mr. Mr. Gingrich, you've uh Speaker Gingrich, you've you've mentioned a few uh possible remedies here. One that caught my attention was the ability of the Chief Justice uh to uh establish a procedure as it concerns nationwide injunctions.
▶ 3:38:54What would that look like? Well, thank you, Raj. Look, it would be the the least intrusive and least disruptive to have the chief justice decide and the court decide. It would be very simple.
▶ 3:39:08Yes, a district judge can render a judgment, but the moment he he or she renders an injunction beyond their district, the Supreme Court would immediately intervene, suspend imposition of the of the remedy until the judge, the chief the Supreme Court rendered a decision. If the Supreme Court said, "You're right," then you have a Supreme Court enforced nationwide injunction.
▶ 3:39:36But if the Supreme Court said, you know, we're not convinced, then it would visiate the whole thing and it would be over. Uh, and you would not have the ability of individual district jud judges to make radical decisions. Remember, justice delayed is denied. You start having, you know, and this is where the judge, frankly, the chief justice was, I think, a little bit silly to say, well, there's an appeals process.
▶ 3:40:01If you're talking about getting rid of criminals or you're talking about defending the country, um an appeals process can run so long that the damage has already been done by the time you go through the appeal. Uh and so I think in some form if we're going to retain the ability of district judges to issue any injunction, it has to be modified. If we can't get a modification, it has to be Thank you very much.
▶ 3:40:27And I would encourage the chief justice to hopefully be thinking about this uh from his perspective. And in Congress, we of course also have tools to create expedited appeals. Uh and uh I think that frankly uh that's hopefully uh perhaps a compromise that both sides could come to since this will be an issue that arises in future administrations as well. I thank the gentleman.
▶ 3:40:47Uh, I now ask unanimous consent that Miss Crockett be permitted to participate in today's hearing for the purpose of questioning a witness if a member yields time for that purpose. And without objection, so ordered. I now recognize a gentleman from California, Swallow. We're about two plus hours into this hearing, maybe three.
▶ 3:41:11And as I'm taking stock, we're here because some guy I've never heard of. He might be in Congress introduced an impeachment resolution, but he's not here. He hasn't been here for at least the last hour. And every witness here is in agreement that we really shouldn't be impeaching judges. I haven't heard a single colleague on the other side say we should be impeaching. Would the gentleman yield? Not yet. And this guy is just raising bucks on this issue.
▶ 3:41:42This is like a fundraising ploy, but we all are here like we're in our suits. We're wasting or we're not dedicating ourselves to other matters because this guy wrote some article. It just seems kind of absurd to me because no one even thinks that's the remedy. And I dare whoever this person is, I I hope he come. I dare him to bring a privilege resolution because we could actually debate this, but it's just a stunt. I promise you it's a stunt.
▶ 3:42:11I I I will contribute to his campaign if he brings before this committee an impeachment resolution. Now, speaker, you said some of these judges are pretend presidents. How much would the gentleman give to his camp? 700 district judges that that are pretending that they're president. There's a judge, a single judge in a federal courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, where conservatives are form shopping and having cases sent to him. Judge Kasmar.
▶ 3:42:39In 2023, he suspended mythopristone approval. That's a medical abortion pill. Can you direct me, speaker, to the statement you gave objecting to him doing that? I couldn't find it. No, I look I I haven't spoken out on this issue until I was invited to come here. Okay. I wrote about it in 2011 and I submitted that for the record.
▶ 3:43:03How about when Judge Casmic ruled against ACA protections for LGBTQ individuals in November 2022? Did you speak out against that rogue judge? I think the term I have not spoken on this issue until I was invited here was generic and included every single one of the cases you want to ask about. So I will stipulate in advance. I did not comment because I did not comment and I'm not here to comment in a single case.
▶ 3:43:30How about an okay to say that the system is out of whack, speaker, which I, by the way, I wrote about in 2011 elect an elected Trump third term. Is that constitutional? I think it's funny, too. If the if the Congress wishes to pass a constitutional amendment and the requisite number of states decide to endorse that amendment, of course, he would have the option to run for reelection. In the absence of that kind of constitutional change, I think that it's impossible. Thank you.
▶ 3:43:59And with that, I'll yield to the gentle lady from Texas, Miss Crockett. Thank you so much, and I appreciate the speaker um for admitting uh openly on the record that it is unconstitutional, but the concerns that I have are around the fact that we are sitting here pretending as if we all are looking out for the constitution, yet we are coming from completely different angles. So, let me go to Professor Shaw.
▶ 3:44:23To be clear, which branch of government is responsible for interpreting what is and what is not legal? Well, the Supreme Court, the the article 3 judicial branch has the final word. So, the judiciary is who it is. So, it's not the legislators. You know, I'd say every branch has an obligation to interpret the Constitution. The final word comes from the courts from from the courts. It's not the former speakers. It's not everyday people. It's not the president. I just wanted to make sure that we understood who it was that was responsible.
▶ 3:44:54And what is so frustrating for so many of the American people, the ones that are watching right now, and otherwise, and the reason that they're outraged and scared is because what we see right now is a diminishing of all these institutions. Right now, we have a legislative branch that has decided that it intentionally would disregard their duties. They are not checking the president whatsoever. The only check that the American people have had thus far has been from the judiciary.
▶ 3:45:23And the judiciary isn't pulling this out of the sky. In fact, they are coming from basic reading of like the plain language of the constitution for all of those that are constitutionalists when we start talking about things such as what birthright citizenship is. But one of the things that I want to make sure that I get to because there are deeper implications if we go down this rabbit hole. Imagine the type of world where the president does whatever he wants to and no one can reign him in. It's a world that right now many people are afraid of. Let me put it this way.
▶ 3:45:52If Joe Biden would have done an executive order for abortion despite what the Supreme Court said, that would have been a problem. Imagine if the state of Colorado kept Trump off the ballot and other states follow suit. That would have been a problem. Or imagine if Jack Smith ignored Eileen Cannon and with the help of an activist judge decided that he was going to prosecute the sitting president anyway.
▶ 3:46:14The problem that we have right now is that if we continue down this road, then we will not have a rule of law because we have people that are currently serving and they're saying things like, "Ignore the judge's order." What it means to have law and order in this country is that you follow the order and you go through the appeals process even if you dislike what the judge did. Thank you. And I yield. I'll yield back. Mr. Mr. You had a question for me which I'll yield to you now if you want to. Now that there's no time left. Thanks. an entertainment. You're you're good.
▶ 3:46:44You're good at that. But I'll take my own time. I'll recognize myself. And I'm going to note that when u uh Miss Lassio Cortez Cortez or AOC as we know her filed articles of impeachment uh on justice Thomas and Alo, Miss Crockett was one of the co-sponsored along with Mr. Cohen, both members of this It does seem interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot, everyone is self-righteous. And I think this is a good example.
▶ 3:47:14For the last three hours, for the last three hours, I have had to listen to one side talking about impeachment as though it was the nature of this hearing. It is not. I keep looking at my friend, the late Henry Hyde, and remember that although he led the impeachment when it was necessary, he did so only during that time and then never mentioned it again in hearings, in fact, he was religiously able to focus on the hearing of the day.
▶ 3:47:44The hearing of today is really about the question of the future of the court's ability to do its job as intended. And I'm I'm going to get into a couple of things fairly quickly. Last night, uh, a California judge, Judge Chen, proactively stopped the, uh, the ending of these temporary protective uh, uh, status.
▶ 3:48:09So the very person that they're talking about who is now apparently back in uh his home country of El Salvador can no longer be sent there because a judge is decided in California to stop an action which was done completely by one um president at his discretion and when another judge said another president says I'm ending it at my discretion they stop him. So I'm going to go to Mr. Larkin first.
▶ 3:48:37uh you mentioned earlier on uh Alaska I think in in passing about judges in various places and I'll reiterate a question that uh Speaker Gingrich also answered If one judge can take a case before them and make ca make rulings on behalf of plaintiffs not there and yet it's a district court judge and we know that courts around the country routinely take similar cases with different plaintiffs and decide them differently and
▶ 3:49:07that's how we generally get to the Supreme Court is to resolve those. Is there any reason that this administration couldn't file a declaratory judgment not in California where where Judge Chen ruled, but in some other place, let's say Texas, which has been mentioned today, and get a different outcome and in fact undo and give a a give in fact the administration a legitimate right to say, "No, we've been found not to be enjoined, but we have a right to do it
▶ 3:49:37as long as we uh siphon it through Texas instead. state of California. Is there any reason today that that doesn't exist as a problem of these national injunctions which are not in the jurisdiction of these judges? What what you're talking about is a problem that the Supreme Court contemplated when it decided the Mendoza case some years ago.
▶ 3:50:00It recognized that different courts will decide issues differently and it decided not to bind the government the first time it lost. If the government lost in Maine, it could continue to take the same position in Alaska or in the other states. They were asked to basically adopt a oneanddone rule and the Supreme Court rejected it. So, it's permissible under the law.
▶ 3:50:25So, so when people talk about this president acting illegally, the fact is this president by acquiescing to these and going through the appellet process actually is is going further than he has to under the constitution. The reality is he could simply say, "You made your decision.
▶ 3:50:42We just won't do it in your district, but we'll do it elsewhere and we'll seek other remedies in other areas." That's the So, the fact is this administration has been overly generous uh for this first 70some days. Correct. The the Supreme Court in Mendoza was unanimous. It included conservatives and liberals on that court and they allowed that development.
▶ 3:51:07So under Mendoza, the fact is only the Supreme Court speaks for the entire nation and that is the that is what we are discussing here today. It's the issue before us. Is that correct? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Uh I'm going to just uh derive a couple of other quick things. There was an earlier question on rule 65. Mhm.
▶ 3:51:28Now these are produced by the court and the unambiguous language of it says that in fact at least in some cases we won't argue over any one of these now approaching a hundred cases there has to be a bond and yet there have been no bonds. Is that correct? I have not searched the record in all those cases. So I we have there hasn't been a bond. I'll trust you on that.
▶ 3:51:54So rule 65 is being ignored by these activist judges and as a result there's a real question about in disobedience of those rules in absence of a bond they may in fact not be enforcable uh as valid. Correct. That that may be I would I would not say they've been ignored because if they weren't raised by the government as an issue in the case then they might have just been overlooked. So I would trust that from this day forward they will not be overlooked.
▶ 3:52:24You've got enough time. This will be the last round for until the recess. You're recognized. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gingrich, I want to focus on some of your testimony today. You say that a judicial coup d'eta is being implemented by judges of the same political ideology. In another uh statement, you said that judge Boseberg has a clear bias against President Trump.
▶ 3:52:50Do you know who appointed Judge I think his first appointment was by George Bush. Correct. And we've been talking about nationwide injunctions. There's been a lot of discussion about the injunction on uh the president's birthright citizenship executive order uh that was enjoined by Judge Kinour. Do you know who appointed Judge Kenau? No, I don't. Ronald Reagan.
▶ 3:53:15So let's just focus on these two Republicanapp appointed judges so we can just remove all the allegations of partisan bias. So we're removing the other 90. So let's focus first on Judge Boseberg's case which is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 law that very specifically applies uh during wartime or if the country is subject to an invasion. Now you would agree I assume as a former speaker of the house that it is Congress's duty to declare war.
▶ 3:53:46I think there's also a provision of the act which says which does say for invasion and I think the average American will tell you they feel that we've been invaded the policies of the so the average so are we now supposed to say that the your assessment of the average American's view determines whether or not we are under invasion by Venezuela. So that's what we're supposed to do.
▶ 3:54:09Now, is it if if not the average American, what your testimony is here today is that Donald Trump because he was elected president alone should determine whether or not that law applies without any due process. Is that your testimony? My position is that the Supreme Court should have the opportunity in a nationwide issue to render. But remember, okay, so let me reclaim my time.
▶ 3:54:38So basically what you're saying then is the problem here is that Judge Boseberg s pre prescertified a class. Uh because of course it is the exact same legal question for every single person who was removed to El Salvador. And what really should happen is that every single one of those people should have to file their own lawsuits and the each district then judge should rule on it.
▶ 3:55:07Is that that's because that's the difference the opposite of a nationwide injunction. Right. Actually, as I've said several times in the last three hours, um there can be a provision by which the Supreme Court takes up that injunction. So which is it? Do you oppose nationwide injunctions as a judicial coup d'eta or do you think nationwide injunctions are appropriate in certain circumstances but should have expedited appeal?
▶ 3:55:33I believe that nationwide injunctions by an individual judge is far too much power and that there can be a procedure. Let's keep on with uh with Judge Boseberg's case. Okay. So he issued and by the way he did not issue an order on the underlying issue.
▶ 3:55:51He temporarily enjoined the president from whisking off people to another country without due process so that the legal issue could be resolved. Now you say expedited appeal that opinion that case was already appealed to the district court the US uh the court of appeals for the district court. they've already ruled and by two to one they kept the temporary injunction in.
▶ 3:56:20It was a Republican appointee Judge Henderson who was on was one of the two. So the I guess I'm confused as to what the problem is with a temporary nationwide injunction so that the issue can be resolved and if necessary ultimately by the Supreme Court. It sounds like you agree with me that that is the uh process.
▶ 3:56:44The difference is whether or not you believe one that time matters and well this is within a matter of weeks. It's now up before the Supreme Court. That's expedited. And I will say I wholly agree with you and to my colleague Mr. Kylie, I would happily work to expedite appeals for nationwide injunctions. I hope my Republican colleagues would work with us to expedite enforcement of congressional subpoenas. This the courts take far too long. I agree with you.
▶ 3:57:13But the notion that we do not have due process and that someone should be removed without due process based on false pretenses which the administration now admits under a petition for habius corpus. I would add Mr. Larkin and that there's no recourse because their mistake is now out of their control. I think even you, Mr.
▶ 3:57:36Gingrich, would agree with me that when you mistakenly accuse someone of being a gang member and you deport them that it is incumbent upon you to fix that mistake. Do you agree? I agree. And with that, we're going to give you uh at least until let's call it 2:30 to return. We stand in recess.
▶ 4:50:00You're next. Thank you all for your patience and indulgence. It took a little longer than we planned. The committee will now resume and our next questions will come from the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you all on the panel for your patience today and uh continuing to persevere as we uh go through this day.
▶ 4:50:27Uh, Speaker Gingrich, you've referred to this trend we're discussing today as a quote emerging dictatorship of district court judges end quote. And you posted on X that the no rogue rulings act quote would be an appropriate first response to the district judges who are trying to be many presidents totally beyond their constitutional authority. I totally agree with you, Speaker Genrich, and the No Rogue Rulings Act would be an impactful first step in addressing this problem.
▶ 4:50:57Um, I was proud to vote in favor of it when this committee marked it up, and I later joined on as a co-sponsor and look forward to at some point having the opportunity to vote on the House floor. Um, but Speaker Gingrich specifically, do you believe there are any additional legislative steps that need to be taken to address the problem of activist judges acting beyond their constitutional authority as you described in your post?
▶ 4:51:24Well, I would just say for the moment that this issue of district judges uh becoming alternative presidents and uh issuing nationwide injunctions is such central point to where we are.
▶ 4:51:39uh that solving this first of all if we can successfully limit the district judges we will have sent such a strong signal of rebalancing the constitution that I think it will sober up everybody in the judicial side there I mean in the future there are some key issues the whole notion of whether judicial supremacy means supreme inside article 3 or supreme over article 1 and two I think is an issue worth
▶ 4:52:09taking up. But I I would put that a very distant second to solving this immediate problem because if you solve the immediate problem, you both make it possible for the executive branch to be effective and you you send a pretty powerful rebuke to the judicial branch that they can't they can't overreach in what they're doing. So I I would make it a sequence in that sense. I got you.
▶ 4:52:33Well, um, as we all know, President Trump issued an executive 14160, which, uh, was referenced earlier today in ending birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, uh, or those on temporary visas. It was on February 5th that US District Judge Deborah Borman of the District of Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against this executive order, arguing that it ran a foul of the 14th Amendment.
▶ 4:53:00Speaker Gingrich, do you think it is in line with the president's duties to re-examine birthright citizenship as he did with Executive Order 14160? Well, I mean, it's certainly a legitimate function of the presidency to look at how things change and how they evolve. I suspect in the short run, this will be resolved at the Supreme Court level.
▶ 4:53:21And I personally believe that it's pretty hard to go back and look at the debate uh at the time of the 14th amendment was adopted and somehow leap from that to a birthright situation. Uh and in fact they're fairly clear uh for example that people who were born to diplomats in the United States do not count as citizens. Uh and there are other factors there but I think the next phase of that argument is going to be at the Supreme Court level.
▶ 4:53:48Uh and then I think depending on what happens, you know what we live in a very different era. This the scale of illegal immigration which frankly has changed. My my guess is some of these debates will change pretty dramatically because President Trump is being so stunningly effective at controlling the border and pretty effective at going after illegals who are also criminal.
▶ 4:54:10Um, but I do think in the long run having somebody who deliberately comes in the US just long enough to have a child and then having had the child maybe on a you a tourist visa if you will claiming now that they have an American citizen in their family. My guess is to the degree that that continues to evolve with modern transportation that we'll probably revisit this issue. But first we ought to see exactly what the Supreme Court says. All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 4:54:39If you'd yield to me, I'll yield to you. I I'll follow up on that briefly. So, a diplomat's child is not a citizen. Correct. Uh specifically, correct? So, a diplomat is here on a visa and is lawfully in this country, including the spouse typically.
▶ 4:54:58Would an invading armies that comes with its uh its spouses uh while here occupying let's say Texas uh would their children be uh covered under the 14th amendment? My reading of the debates about the amendment would suggest that you had to be here legally in order to be qualified uh to have a child who would become an American. So you you couldn't be here illegally.
▶ 4:55:28You couldn't be here uh in a situation where uh you would not be within American law. And I think in that sense uh an invading army by definition is not here as part of the American law. So it's a legitimate debate on the 14th amendment and where you'd be in and out. Uh I I think it's it's it's it was a habit which grew up sort of absent-mindedly when there frankly weren't very many cases. And as it got to be a bigger and bigger issue, people began to say, "Wait a second.
▶ 4:55:56Do we really think that in the 1860s, this is something they had in mind." And I think it's pretty hard to read the debate and conclude that they wanted birthright citizenship for non-citizens. So now we go to the gentleman from Missouri next. Excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Oh, you haven't gone yet. No, I have not. You sit so close. I know. The gentle lady is recognized for five Thank you.
▶ 4:56:23Um, it's interesting that we've returned to the birthright citizenship argument because I think the courts that have looked at this issue, several courts already and have reviewed the debates from that time, found that they did explicitly um consider the issue of uh non-citizens and who was in the country and the court has considered it as well. But I think Mr. Raskin uh I could yield to you for a minute. Well, both thank you, Miss Gallen. You know, I've looked at this question too. I've gone back and I've read the debates.
▶ 4:56:53All of the explicit mentions I've seen were were explicitly to reject the proposition that Speaker Gingrich just mentioned, the idea that somehow you wouldn't be covered. There was an exception talked about for the children of diplomats, but that was very much a discrete exception. Everybody identified.
▶ 4:57:11And one way of understanding this, of course, is that the African-Americans for whom the first sentence of the 14th amendment were core intended themselves all had parents and grandparents who were non-citizens because the meaning of the Dread Scott decision was that you could never be a citizen if you were an African-American or the descendant of slaves.
▶ 4:57:34And so the first sentence of the 14th amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens of the United States was a direct overruling of Dread Scott and saying that all of these people whose parents were not citizens could come in. And there were specific questions on the floor about people from other countries, especially uh what were considered the dread Chinese at the point.
▶ 4:57:59And there were uh very emphatic statements made that yes, even uh the children born of Chinese non-citizens would be citizens. So I'm not quite sure what the speaker is referring to. If you've written a law reviewview article on that, I would love to see it, but everything that I I've seen both directly in the debates and the law review literature is completely counter to what he just said. Thank you for yielding. Thank you.
▶ 4:58:21Um the committee's covered a lot of ground today and I want just wanted to return for a minute to some of the basic civics um principles that were raised by this hearing and why our courts and an independent judiciary matter. Some of our colleagues and the administration itself have suggested that since Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election, his actions and his interpretation of the law can't be questioned. Can you explain why that's a problem under our constitutional system? Um, sure.
▶ 4:58:51I would say that sort of maybe the single most important core structural principle in our constitution is that power be divided and that power check power because too much concentration of power leads to tyranny. Um, so all that we have seen with the rulings that have come down that have found violations of either statutes passed by congress or provisions of the constitution is the separation of powers working as intended.
▶ 4:59:15So the president having the sole and final authority to determine the meaning of laws, statutes or the constitution is just fundamentally inconsistent with the notion of separated powers that is I think the core of our constitution. I think we've also had conversations today about due process and how vesting all the power to determine what the law is and who is subject to it in one person or one branch leads to a slippery slope.
▶ 4:59:41We've heard today that the administration has deported someone who was not a Venezuelan gang member and in fact did not even have a criminal record. We know that in the past um the administration has deported citizens because they were not able to get a hearing to prove they were citizens. So um this slippery slope becomes very real.
▶ 5:00:04Nobody here is saying that we shouldn't punish or deport violent criminals, but we are saying that you need to prove someone is a violent criminal before you can exert this kind of punishment on them. Can you talk about how that impacts every American? Sure. Yeah. I mean, I just think that the only way that government can be sure and that all of us can be sure that they are targeting the right people for these harshest of punishments is by affording a modicum of process. Right? That is the notion of due process.
▶ 5:00:31So making sure that individuals understand what is being alleged against them and have some opportunity to to respond that is just the heart of due process. And I do think that it's important that both the initial temporary restraining order issued by Judge Boseberg that we've talked about a good amount already today that was affirmed by by part you know a panel of the DC circuit that invol in included appointees of both Democratic and Republican presidents um simply sort of reaffirmed that core notion that a degree of process needs to be afforded to everyone and that's not to constrain the ultimate ability of the president to enforce the immigration laws.
▶ 5:01:01It just suggests the constitution needs to be honored while he does that. I want to thank our witnesses. I'd yield my remaining time to Mr. Raskin. Thank you. You know, it seems to me that when Donald Trump was criminally prosecuted in New York or civily sued in New York, everybody insisted on all due process and he deserved it and he got it. And even then, people still doubted the integrity or the veracity of some of the findings and the verdicts.
▶ 5:01:26And now we have people saying, uh, no, we don't need any due process at all in order to, you know, do X, Y, or Z to someone. And that just can't be right. Thank you. Thank you. We go to the gentleman from Missouri now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the witnesses for joining us today. You know, Speaker Gingrich, thank you for your testimony. You are a great student of history, in fact, a great teacher of history.
▶ 5:01:51And I'd like to recall the words of Chief Justice John Marshall, uh, who famously said, "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is." I've never liked that quote uh because on its face it it implies some sort of judicial supremacy that judges are somehow supreme oligarchs that they are like Moses bringing down the tablets from Mount Si.
▶ 5:02:15But I think Marshall at the time was presiding over what was famously called the weakest and the least dangerous branch of government in Federalist 78 by Alexander Hamilton. And I think Marshall if he were here today would say that yes the judges are the ultimate arbit interpreters of what the law is and of course it is the duty of the judges to apply uh the law in concrete cases before them but we face a very different situation today.
▶ 5:02:44Um I believe we do have a constitutional crisis as you say a judicial coup. Uh we have Chuck Schumer bragging about his 235 quote progressive judges, his word, not mine, uh in over a hundred cases, issuing injunctions time after time and a time, his words, not mine, to block the article two executive powers of a dulyeleed president of the United States.
▶ 5:03:10Um, but I think and and of course we have the ridiculous uh decision of Judge Boseman that planes ought to be turned back to aid vicious Venezuelan drug gang members. But an equally absurd TTRO was issued by US District Court Judge Brendan Herson and the P flag versus Donald Trump case.
▶ 5:03:29Uh, in that decision, Herson halted President Trump's January 28th executive order protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation, which block taxpayer dollars from being used for sex change operations for children. This is an absurd and activist TTRO. And the only reason such grizzly procedures were ever covered by Medicaid is that President Obama's CMS decided they would be.
▶ 5:03:57There is no law passed by Congress that genital mutilation of children should be covered by Medicaid. So it stands to reason to per to paraphrase Barack Obama that what was done by the pen and the phone can be undone by the pen and the phone. Um but Judge Hursten says no. He is above the law and above the artic article two and the constitution. So I believe we do indeed have a constitutional crisis.
▶ 5:04:25Um so um Mu, uh Speaker Gingrich, I I agree with you that the no ru rogue rulings act is a very good start. Um and and I really encourage the Supreme Court to issue a ruling to make this very clear. Um Professor Shaw, in December 2024, Biden's solicitor general Elizabeth Pelleigar criticized the practice of nationwide injunctions.
▶ 5:04:52Then in 2022, or previously in 2022, Justice Elena Kagan criticized nationwide injunctions. In October 2023, speaking at NYU Law School, you criticize nationwide injunctions and what you called precision judge shopping, which seems to me is exactly what's being done against the executive action of the actions of the of President Trump now.
▶ 5:05:19And then in February 2023, in an op-ed in the New York Times, you said that the US Supreme Court was at the time a quote a genuine threat to democracy. But fast forward to March of 2025, and you're here today exhibiting enormous deference to not Supreme Court justices, but district court judges ruling dozens of times against the president's executive powers. And you're saying, "Well, they're just doing their job. They're getting it right. and President Trump has it wrong.
▶ 5:05:49Whereas it was the other way just a few couple short years ago. Miss Shaw, this looks awfully political on your part. Your response. Um, thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond. I mean, I think what I was discussing um in the quote that you uh uh mentioned was the problem which I think is a very real one of single judge divisions where plaintiffs can guarantee with 100% certainty that they will draw a particular judge like Judge Kazmik in Amarillo, Texas. And isn't that what's going on right now?
▶ 5:06:14Not a single one of the 46 rulings that have come down against the Trump administration have been filed in single judge districts. It's entirely different. So I am not standing here saying that there is never abuse of the universal injunction reform I think is perfectly appropriate. But but that's an entirely different problem and that's not what's being addressed in the legislation. Was was the TTR and P flag versus Donald Trump uh correctly issued?
▶ 5:06:37And if so, where in USC 42 of the Social Security Act as amended with Medicaid, where where do you see where do you see an entitlement for Medicaid coverage of sex change operations and children? Sir, I apologize. I I I'm not sure the reasoning of the opinion. Many of these opinions have have come down either on First Amendment or equal protection grounds, the TTRO.
▶ 5:06:59So, I I I would have to to take a look at the reasoning and the opinion, but a temporary pause, which is what these TTRO are, where a judge thinks there's a serious constitutional flaw with an order issued by the president, I do think is appropriate. Temporary pause, just like puberty blockers. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. We now go to gentleman from South Carolina right down the row. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Mr.
▶ 5:07:23Lin in your testimony you talked about um the history of nationwide injunctions and how this has not always been the practice in the courts up until the 1960s and we've seen an escalation of nationwide injunctions by district court judges. Um what would how would you characterize the emergence of nationwide injunctions since the 1960s and its effect on the judiciary? There are two things to keep in mind.
▶ 5:07:49First, the 1960s saw a rise in what is called institutional reform litigation, an attempt not just to win a case for a particular client, a particular John or Jane Doe, but to establish a rule of law that could be used in the whole category of cases to which it could possibly be applied and then in a lot of others as well. So, if uh you're doing it in a state, for example, you're not going to say that your client was the only one affected by unconstitutional prison conditions.
▶ 5:08:18you're going to sue the entire state department of corrections because what you want is to have one judge reconfigure the number of people in in rooms, how the rooms are laid out, all of that. And so what you had was you had judges who in some cases were trying to decide with hellish conditions that would have made Dante blanch uh and try to figure out how to deal with that.
▶ 5:08:44And so it's not surprising that in some of those cases uh I mean there are different prisons there were in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, we know them all uh that were absolutely awful. And a judge under those circumstances is probably going to have to do more uh than just say okay well you have to give this one client a better room.
▶ 5:09:06Uh so what you you saw was a development in this regard of judges expanding the reach of the relief that was being granted. That was part of it. Part of it was also a do you just s real quickly just from a time perspective do you think that part of this emergence of nationwide injunctions particularly against the Trump administration now I mean the numbers are kind of shocking is is partly due to partisan nature of some judges on the bench.
▶ 5:09:34Oh, I I don't doubt that at all. I mean, if you take a look at the uh selection process, presidents tend to look for people who are going to rule in accordance with their views, whether you're on the right or the left, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. I worked for Senator Orin Hatch when he was the chair of the judiciary committee. And you know, if he was the chair under Obama, you would see one type of judge being nominated. if he was the chair under George W.
▶ 5:10:04Bush, you'd see a different type of judge being nominated. Uh different ways of looking at it uh is common among people and people become judges. Speaker Gingrich, you earlier you talked about um obviously that your support of u certain congressional actions that would correct or rectify the role of the courts um in these nationwide injunctions. But you also talked a little bit about that the court can self-pol itself. I think with Mr. Kylie, you went into at least one metric on on how that could be done.
▶ 5:10:32But what are your thoughts generally on how um the chief justice who who seemed to kind of brush aside criticism of the courts and just say, "Well, you could just go through the appellet process." How could the chief justice reign in his own court? Well, I suspect that uh Mr. Mr. Lurin actually knows more about this than I do, but my impression is that the Supreme Court has rather strong capacity to instruct district courts in a broad range of procedures.
▶ 5:11:02Uh and I think that were the chief justice to basically preempt uh Chairman Isa's bill and say this is how we're now going to handle I mean the argument in this hearing as I understand it is really pretty narrow. It is that with all with with with over 600 district court judges, you cannot have them each thinking they're an alternative president. And therefore, there has to be an alternative system. One system would be to block all uh nationwide rulings.
▶ 5:11:32Another system would be to have it appealed automatically to the Supreme Court. So, so a nationwide ruling immediately got a nationwide court looking at it uh and and recognizing that the right the appeals process that the Supreme Court chief justice referred to is nonsense when you're talking about executive branch actions because the length of time it takes to go through the appeals process is by itself destructive of the capacity to have what Hamilton called as an active chief
▶ 5:12:03executive. He said that the the system will only work with an active chief executive. Well, you can't be an active chief executive if you have a whole bunch of little uh tying you up. And this is a classic example of Guliver uh and and the the local district judge who suddenly has blown themselves up in their own ego and decided I too could be president and I'll show you because I'm actually a superior president because you have to obey me. Right.
▶ 5:12:29uh it's it's it's impossible to defend situation and and in that circumstance or my I know I'm over time here briefly but uh in that circumstance you have 600 presidents of the United States. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back gentleman from Wisconsin. Yeah, I I don't like being here today. It's a sad state of affairs uh because you don't like to have to clip the wings of the judiciary or say that sometimes we uh don't have to obey a judge's order, which is I think where this is leading.
▶ 5:13:00Um but we have a lot of judges who are reaching decisions that are just so completely out of line and where a lot of these decisions are going to revolve around immigration and removing people. And the only reason this has become such a big issue is that we had a president who decided to the degree to which he could, he's not going to enforce the immigration laws of the country.
▶ 5:13:24So after you have completely irresponsible president and completely irresponsible judges, uh you you wind up in the mess we are today. Now, um just to clarify things, I'll ask uh well maybe Mr. Lark and Speaker Genrich. Uh obviously the country's been around now under our current constitution for about 230 years about.
▶ 5:13:49Um what precedents from the early part of our country indicate that injunction should not be beyond parties directly involved in litigation? In other words, when George uh when Abraham Lincoln went to law school, what would he have thought about these decisions? Well, of course, Lincoln didn't go to law school. You're right. I was going to correct myself. He read the law. Right.
▶ 5:14:09Uh, but look, I' I've been around long enough that I remembered talking with Jefferson and when I talked to Jefferson, he said, you know, you simply can't have an oligarchy and if you allow judges to be the final determinance, you by definition have left the people behind and established an oligarchy.
▶ 5:14:29I really think if you if you look at Lincoln and if you read Faren Bacher's extraordinarily detailed book on DreadScott, Lincoln makes the DreadScott decision the centerpiece of the 1858 campaign. And when Lincoln is very clear about this, think about think about Lincoln at Gettysburg. When he says government of the people, by the people, and for the people, he's not only referring to southern slave owners.
▶ 5:14:56He's referring to the court and he's saying by definition you cannot usurp the right of the elected officials. Now if you read the federalist papers it's very clear that the founding fathers thought the weakest of the three branches would be the judiciary that it would always be cautious because it would always be subject to being overwhelmed by the executive and legislative together.
▶ 5:15:18And in fact, you all represent the branch the founding fathers most feared because they assumed that the people elected by the people would have the greatest power. So we just have to recognize there's a and we said they were wise. Yeah, that's I think good reasons to fear the institution I once. Can I just add a short supplement to that? Sure. I I'd like to say did this did this issue ever come up in the 1840s or 1850s or 1860s or 187?
▶ 5:15:49No. Okay. It was just assumed. It was understood at the time. The the law of equity was party specific. If you know if person one sued person two, the court would remedy whatever harm person one suffered, the court would not then go on and enter an injunction that tried to govern society. That was not the role of the courts.
▶ 5:16:19And the Supreme Court has even made that point more recently. uh they've said the the responsibility to adjudicate a case or controversy is quite different from the responsibility to govern the society. The Lewis versus Casey which is cited in one of my articles makes this point. U so it it was not a component of equity uh in England or as you put it in the 1840s50s or 60s.
▶ 5:16:49It happened only much later. Okay. Now, we're never supposed to. They They tell us you're never supposed to ask the Democrat witness, but I'll break with I'll break with my stuff. Uh, Miss Shaw, what do you think is the strongest example of a case, say, before 1870 in which a a district court tried to come up with a ruling that affected the whole country?
▶ 5:17:15I you know we don't have examples that are of the sort of nationwide injunction that we know today. I don't think that's really in question. They are the there's been an enormous increase. the scholarly debate about how kind of well okay sort of how how historically grounded this is you know goes back and forth but it's either about a century old or a little more but I don't think there's much suggestion that there were injunctions of this sort in the early okay that would be an indication that under our constitution our forefathers never dreamed
▶ 5:17:45we'd have these type of rulings come from somebody who who just uh it comes from an individual district but we'll we'll ask I could tell Speaker Genrich wanted to get in one more swing here so We'll let you get in the swing and then I'll look what what we have seen over the long sweep of American history is a gradual steady increase in the self-esteem and power of lawyers. Marbury versus Madison is totally misrepresented.
▶ 5:18:13The fact is that Marshall was terrified of Jefferson. Knew that the Jeffersonians would gladly wipe out the court. Danced around. It's not revisited until Dread Scott. And Dread Scott's a disaster. And so you really have a long period here where judges didn't think they had the power to define for the country uh how the country should behave.
▶ 5:18:38And what we're living through and I I'm very sympathetic to the agony on the left because this is the if you have Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Trump, this is the fifth great cycle of a profound challenge to the existing order. And obviously these kind of periods are very painful and they're very dangerous and you got to work your way through them. And I think this is one of the examples.
▶ 5:19:04You have a group of people well-meaning I believe but ideologically deeply convinced that they have the power to overrule the president of United States. And now the country has to make a decision. Do we in fact have alternative presidents in the form of district judges or not? and the country I think will overwhelmingly decide that that's impossible. And so but this is this is a classic historic this is what the congresses should be about at its best.
▶ 5:19:32This is a classic historic discussion on both sides of how we retain a balance of power between the three branches and I think that's where we are. Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from Texas who's been patiently waiting. Thank thank you Mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses who are here. We we discussed it a little bit earlier, but I'd like to put a little bit of a a finer point on it.
▶ 5:19:58In the 117th Congress, then Chairman Jerry Nadler, as well as Hank Johnson introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021, which would have increased the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13. And that bill had 59 Democrat co-sponsors.
▶ 5:20:17And they were so convicted that the size of the Supreme Court should be 13 justices that they then reintroduced the same bill in the following Congress and received 65 co-sponsors. So I am looking forward to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle reintroducing that bill this Congress as well. I we hear a lot about bipartisanship and I'm I'm sure you can get a little bit of bipartisan support for that uh when you do.
▶ 5:20:46But with with that said, uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, um civilization is a very fragile thing. And in the western world, particularly in in the United States, it's been unraveling as the left and their allies on the courts have intentionally and deliberately facilitated the mass migration of criminal illegal aliens into our communities.
▶ 5:21:13These are people who are murdering and raping and pillaging American citizens on American soil. A country that was once the zenith of civilization, America is increasingly resembles the third world and is reverting to barbarism as Miss Romero's testimony so poignantly underscores.
▶ 5:21:34And instead of fighting for the preservation of our communities and the integrity of our nation's sovereignty, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to keep alien terrorists within our borders. And it's so many times district court judges are leading the charge and I think the jud judge Boseberg is an excellent example of that. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for being here.
▶ 5:22:01It's an honor to be able to to speak with you and ask you questions. I look up to you a lot. Could you explain how how much constitutional and legal authority does Congress have to oversee lower courts? Well, there's virtually if if it if it acts with the executive branch. I mean, the part of the theory of Monscu's uh spirit of the law, which is the base of the constitution, is you have these three bodies. Any two outvotes the other one.
▶ 5:22:32So, in a very real sense, the congress and the judiciary could take on the executive or the judiciary and the executive could take on the Congress. But there's a constant revolving. President Jackson made the argument that in fact each of us every elected official has an equal obligation to enforce the constitution and he refused to accept the idea that the court could instruct him. I mean they very blatantly just said glad you think that I don't.
▶ 5:23:01Uh and that and then Tony who was his attorney general who who defended that ends up as a Supreme Court justice in many ways leading to the civil war by his decision in Dread Scott. So I think you have every right if you if you read the constitution itself you create lower courts. I mean the Supreme Court is superior in the sense there's the one thing in the constitution you could not eliminate except by constitutional amendment.
▶ 5:23:28But everything below that is a creature of the legislative executive agreement. I'm assuming here you're not going to try to override the president. But you I mean theoretically the Congress could decide and if it had the votes in the House and Senate, you can override a president, right? So the courts are actually much more subject to the policing of the elected officials of the United States than they think they are.
▶ 5:23:53And that's because for about three generations now, law schools have taught this mythology of of of legal supremacy based on the judicial branch alone. It's nonsense. It's one of three co-equal branches and it is the weakest of the three, not the strongest.
▶ 5:24:10And in in terms of enforcing that oversight, putting aside whether impeachment is the most expeditious or or or prudent means right now to oversee the courts, do you believe that it should be at least considered as an option to remedy blatant or flagrant judicial overreach from district court judges? Well, I I think that chairman Isa has exactly the right first step.
▶ 5:24:33I mean, I'm look, we're in the middle of such enormous change that I have this will strike some of you who've known my career as sort of unusual. I'm actually now in a period of thinking incrementalism may be pretty good because we've actually set an enormous shift strategically and now we need to spend a little bit of time cautiously you know so I don't want to overreach you know which which you I mean theoretically you could abolish the district judges you mean you have that power if the president agrees that would but that would be an enormous jump
▶ 5:25:04and I think the country needs to educate itself and frankly the judges are going to get educated if if they see the legislative branch seriously moving. I mean, it's one thing to the president say something, you know, from the bully pulpit. It's another thing to suddenly see laws moving and realize, you know, if we don't pull back a little bit, this could become uncontrollable. Yep. I think I'm hoping that's why today I've repeatedly talked about the opportunity the chief justice has because I really hope he'll realize he is the he has the best, easiest, least disruptive solution.
▶ 5:25:35And and for for the record, I I agree that I I think that uh Mr. ISIS bill is an excellent piece of legislation that we should all be able to get behind. As a freshman, you're going to go far. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our distinguished panelists uh for uh for this insightful testimony and what's been a long day. Uh m Mr. Speaker, it's real honor to be able to ask you a few questions.
▶ 5:26:00When you're a freshman in this body, you see a lot of portraits on the wall and frankly, you don't know who a lot of the people are, but I think uh the American people always remember you. uh in your the mark you've left on this institution. The question I have for you is is just to to to comment on the situation the American people find themselves in because I think this is a very dangerous and perilous time uh for America because I think the American people think the fix is in and you talk to the average person uh in my district and they look at a situation where over 12 million people came into
▶ 5:26:30the country illegally and there was no remedy to stop that procedurally from their elected officials. And now they look at a situation where after they had an election, they had a president that clearly campaigned on this issue. And they look at dangerous gang members who spread fentinol that's killed over a 100,000 Americans, more than died in Vietnam, more than died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they say, "Well, let's get these people out of here.
▶ 5:26:59This is what we just voted for." And yet now there's a system where the one judge or a few judges in a certain area after judge shopping can stop. So they look at the situation and say is there any remedy to this?
▶ 5:27:14I mean, what is the future of the republic if what they just voted for is something as egregious as dangerous hardened gang members from a foreign country in the country legal spreading a deadly drug that is killing over 100,000 Americans? And they say, "Well, how is this supposed to work?" So, what would be your comment to these people? Well, three quick things. First, I' I've run a project uh called the America's New Majority Project.
▶ 5:27:41And if you ask the American people, uh, do you think the system is corrupt? 82% say yes. Now, that's really dangerous in a free society. I don't care what your ideology, what your partisanship is when more than eight out of every 10 of your fellow Americans think the system's corrupt. You have a deep challenge to somehow break through really on a nonpartisan basis.
▶ 5:28:05Second, President Lincoln once said, "With public sentiment, anything is possible." uh without public sentiment nothing is possible and I think it's very important for every judge who thinks they want to impose themselves on the president to ask themselves are you putting the entire judicial system in disrepute because if the country sees really sort of by the standards of most Americans fairly radical positions being taken by judges blocking what is the clear will of the
▶ 5:28:35American people not just the president I think that it literally puts the entire entire underlying system under enormous stress and leads to popular dissatisfaction in a way that's very very dangerous. The stability of the system ultimately requires that all of us find a way to work together to to to behave in such a way that people no longer think the system's corrupt. And Mr.
▶ 5:28:59Speaker, just finally, um, you know, you referenced, uh, uh, Thomas Jefferson, uh, one of our founding fathers, one of the founding revolutionaries of this country and the, author of the Declaration of Independence. Um, in your opening statement, uh, I was able to visit the White House for the, uh, the first time uh, last week and, uh, got to meet President uh, Trump there. And as we came in, we made exchanged some pleasantries and there was a kind of a humorous moment because neither of us knew quite what to do because staff wasn't telling us.
▶ 5:29:26and uh as we had this kind of moment of silence and he said, "Well, can I show you the Declaration of Independence?" And he turned around and and uh and showed it to me that was on his wall and he was very proud he just had it installed. And so it was kind of a a fun moment as you can imagine for any American citizen, particularly a fresh member of Congress. But u I hear you loud and clear and I hope on what you think is the best remedy at this point is that uh Chief Justice Roberts steps in and brings some some clarity and some sanity uh to this to the craziness right now.
▶ 5:29:53But if he didn't and President Jefferson were uh sitting in the White House or the uh president right now, what do you think President Jefferson would do if Chief Justice Roberts wouldn't step in and and help this issue? You know, the Jeffersonians as a group were bitterly anti-judge.
▶ 5:30:15Uh the number two demand in the American Revolution after no taxational re representation was their hatred of the British judges because they were appointed by the king served at the king's uh convenience and were seen as the oppressors imposing the law of a foreign government on the American people. And Jefferson had grown out of that tradition. Jefferson's probably the most radical of the founding fathers.
▶ 5:30:42And the Jeffersonians ran essentially uh on cleaning up the judiciary. This is why the whole thing with Marshall such a wonderful example of a slight of hand because the if you look at the judicial act of 18 in 1801 after they lose the election the federalist passed the judiciary act of 1801 which creates judges many of whom were being appointed literally the night before Jefferson sworn in. So they were called the midnight judges. Well, the Jeffersonians thought we're not going to have this.
▶ 5:31:12So, they write the Judiciary Act of 1802 and they wipe out, as I said at the beginning of my statement, they wipe out, I think, 16 of them, 14 of which were actually occupied. I I got into this because a good friend of mine is a great lawyer said those must have been vacant because after all, it's a lifetime appointment. No, we went back and pulled up the biographies. These 14 guys had to go out and get a job. I mean, they were gone. And so I think Matt Marshall knew you pushed Jefferson very hard.
▶ 5:31:39I mean a guy who buys half a continent sends the Marines to Tripoli. Uh you really want to play this game? And and they didn't. I mean he's very if you read Marberry versus medicine it's a brilliantly clever device in which he says we really have this authority but you don't have to worry about it because we ain't going to give it to him. So, you know, Maruray doesn't get doesn't get his writ while so he he tweaked Jefferson, but he knew if he tweaked him too much, he probably he would probably have replaced the whole Supreme Court.
▶ 5:32:07I mean, the Jeffersonians were very tough about this stuff. I think what but I think Jefferson also was very practical and I think what Jefferson would say is you've raised the issue, you've begun to get the country aware. Um, you might consider as a first step chairman ISIS's bill. There may be, I'm not suggesting this, but I'm responding to your question. It may be speculatively at some point that the most radical and dumbest of the decisions could lead to interrogatories to the judges first in writing.
▶ 5:32:38It might even be conceivable at some point that the judges might be brought in under oath to explain what's the const I mean, how did you think of this? What's the constitutional basis? Why are you doing this? I mean, there are many ways one could pursue this.
▶ 5:32:51My hope is that the comments we've made here today will in fact move the chief justice to eliminate the problem and and to to get back to a situation where no single district judge is is an alternative president and where we can have greater respect for the court system because the court system has greater respect for us. I thank you all.
▶ 5:33:14It's been a long day and although my closing statement I'll read in a moment says this will be in writing just to make it easier for all of you. There are approximately 8,000 petitions to the Supreme Court every year. Over the last three uh calendar years the court has accepted 68 62 and 62 of them.
▶ 5:33:38We've heard a great deal today about just appeal, just go through uh on now what's clearly going to hit over a hundred uh national injunctions, all of whom would, according to Chief Justice uh Roberts, have to go to him through an appeal process.
▶ 5:33:54Even with Speaker Gingrich's suggestion that would be a hundred additional cases potentially in a year going to the Supreme Court in writing because it has been a long day to the extent that any of you want to opine on the question of the burden to the court that comes from these many many national injunctions because we've talked about my bill here quite a bit today.
▶ 5:34:23We've also talked about impeachment quite a bit today and you're all welcome to opine on that in written but I think it's important that we also ask a lot of functional questions uh ranking member Johnson and I we oversee the courts. We've moved uh again in this Congress on a bipartisan basis to add 66 new judges at the district level. But we all have to be concerned of case load of how do we get the right number of cases? How do we get them to the judges?
▶ 5:34:53How do we get good decisions? And ultimately the burden that flows up to the Supreme Court. So as my script now says, this concludes our hearing. And I want to thank our witnesses. And I would ask uh that all members have five legislative days in which to uh give additional written materials for the witnesses uh along with other material and would ask that the witnesses be willing to respond to those if they receive them.
▶ 5:35:20And before I gave, Miss Romero, you uh you weren't asked any questions to speak of today because you weren't a constitutional scholar, but I'll leave to you the last I'm worried that all the outrage um following the illegal immigrants rights and their right to be here and they could be good people and we need to have
▶ 5:35:50them properly vetted before we get them out of the country. Where was all the outrage before you let them in? Where was all the outrage when my video happened? Um, you guys save your outrage to when it's convenient to fight a president who's trying to make a positive change in the country. Where where was all your outrage when I needed your help?
▶ 5:36:21because I feel like you guys have lost the plot and you're allowing harm to come to Americans in the pursuit of stopping Trump and I don't think that that's right and I don't think that it's fair and I don't think in the next election it'll stand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We stand