House Republicans Prepare Legislation to Curb Judicial Power Amid Disputes Over Trump Administration Policies
Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican representing Ohio, has announced that Republican lawmakers are actively developing a series of legislative proposals aimed at placing constraints on the judiciary. This initiative comes as the Trump administration faces ongoing legal challenges in numerous federal courts concerning its policies.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Jordan stated, "Everything’s on the table. We’re looking to be as helpful as possible." He emphasized the commitment of House Republicans to address what they perceive as judicial overreach.
One specific measure under consideration is a bill introduced by Representative Darrell Issa, a Republican from California who chairs the courts subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. This bill seeks to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions in response to cases that are more localized in scope.
Jordan indicated that he anticipates a vote on Issa’s bill in the near future, stating, "We’ve looked at different ways to draft legislation. But we think that makes sense. That’s something that we can look at doing and maybe even, you know, try to move fairly quick on that bill."
Nationwide injunctions, which halt the implementation of policies across the entire country, have become a frequent point of contention between the executive and judicial branches, particularly during the Trump administration. Republicans argue that these injunctions allow single judges to effectively block policies supported by the president and Congress, thereby disrupting the balance of power.
In addition to restricting nationwide injunctions, Jordan mentioned the possibility of creating a mechanism for expedited appeals when presidential policies are subjected to such injunctions. This would provide a faster avenue for the government to challenge these orders and potentially limit their scope.
"Another idea Jordan mentioned was taking those nationwide injunctions to stop presidential policies and providing an avenue for an expedited appeal to potentially get the order limited quickly," the article stated.
Furthermore, Jordan discussed reintroducing legislation from the previous Congress, during which Democrats held control of the Senate and the White House. One such bill, sponsored by Representative Russell Fry, a Republican from South Carolina, would allow presidents or vice presidents involved in lawsuits or other legal proceedings to move those cases to federal court if they originated in a lower circuit.
However, Jordan indicated that the current version of the bill would be broadened to include other federal officials, not just the president and vice president. "I think the bill we’re looking at this year would say not just the president, vice president, but ‘federal official,’ he explained."
This expansion suggests a desire to provide greater protection to federal officials from potential legal challenges, particularly those perceived as politically motivated.
Another potential area of legislative action involves revisiting a bill that passed both the House and Senate under former President Joe Biden. This bill aimed to expand the number of federal judgeships across the country by adding 66 new positions.
The bill passed the Senate in August of last year but faced delays in the House. It was eventually taken up by the House in December, after President Donald Trump had won the election. However, unlike the Senate vote, a majority of Democrats in the House did not support the bill. Biden ultimately vetoed the bill in January as one of his final acts as president.
Jordan suggested that Republicans may attempt to revive this legislation, arguing that an increase in the number of federal judges is necessary. "Everyone thinks we need more judges. I think we do. We had legislation that every Democrat in the Senate supported that would allow the presidents over the next 10 years, you know, whoever happens to be president, to appoint those," Jordan said.
He criticized Democrats for opposing the bill after Trump’s victory, implying that their opposition was politically motivated. "We brought it up, but the Democrats voted against it after President Trump won. So we’ll try to pass that again and see if we can get the votes," he added.
These legislative efforts by House Republicans are part of a broader conservative agenda to reshape the judiciary and limit what they see as judicial activism. Conservative legal scholars and activists have long argued that federal courts have overstepped their constitutional boundaries and that judges should adhere more closely to the original intent of the Constitution.
Jordan emphasized that his staff is in regular communication with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson’s office regarding the progress of these legislative proposals and their potential movement to the House floor.
The timing of this legislative push coincides with a surge in lawsuits filed against the Trump administration’s policies. During Trump’s first few weeks in office, numerous activists, left-leaning organizations, and other groups initiated legal challenges against his executive orders.
Trump policies related to various issues, including the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), birthright citizenship limitations, and federal aid freezes, have been challenged in federal courts. Some of these challenges have resulted in court orders blocking the implementation of Trump’s policies.
These legal battles underscore the ongoing tension between the executive and judicial branches and highlight the significant role that the courts play in shaping public policy. The legislative efforts by House Republicans to curb judicial power reflect a desire to rebalance this relationship and ensure that the executive branch has greater latitude to implement its agenda.
It is important to note that these legislative proposals are likely to face significant opposition from Democrats, who view them as an attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary and shield the Trump administration from legal accountability. The fate of these bills will depend on the ability of Republicans to garner sufficient support in both the House and the Senate, as well as the willingness of President Trump to sign them into law.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House and Speaker Johnson’s office for comment, but no response was received as of the time of publication.
