Washington, D.C. (February 26, 2025)— Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, led subcommittee Democrats in detailing the Trump Administration’s assault on the judicial branch and explaining how House Republicans backed out of a bipartisan deal to address judicial shortages for purely political reasons.
The hearing included testimony from Judge Timothy Tymkovich, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Subcommittee Democrats emphasized that Americans need an independent, impartial judiciary that can approach each case with a commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law.
- Ranking Member Raskin asked: “There were federal prosecutors who were fired simply for having participated in the January 6th cases, and I know that most judges would think that that is deeply problematic that prosecutors are being fired simply for doing their job. If we don’t have the judges to deal with this, would we be in a dangerous situation with respect to an executive branch cannibalizing all parts of the government?” Judge Tymkovich replied, “We believe the need for new judges is urgent and necessary now.”
- Ranking Member Johnson: “In just 36 short days, the Trump-Musk Administration has sought to unilaterally reinterpret the Constitution, bequeathing new powers to itself out of thin air, all while publicly undermining the judicial branch’s previously unquestioned constitutional power to ‘say what the law is.’ […] Our 250-year experiment in self-governance will succeed only if Americans continue to believe that judicial independence means that judges are not subject to pressure and influence.”
Subcommittee Democrats explained how Donald Trump and Elon Musk want total control of the federal courts.
- Ranking Member Johnson said: “Since he took office, Donald Trump has shown open contempt for our Constitution, the rule of law, and for the independence of our federal court system. So I have a hard time understanding how we are supposed to sit here and cordially talk about giving this man more federal judges to appoint. The blatant disregard the constitutionally-based doctrine of the separation of powers. By the Trump-Musk Administration is the crisis that we should all be talking about because it’s not a matter of if Trump will challenge the court’s authority. It’s a matter of when and how far he will go”
- Rep. Zoe Lofgren said: “Just last week, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle filed an impeachment resolution against Judge Paul Engelmeyer, not for misconduct, but because of a ruling they disagreed with. And then days later, Representative Van Orden posted this on X, “The American people gave that @realDonald Trump a mandate and no politician disguised as a jurors will interfere with it.” Then over the weekend, Elon Musk demanded Judge Abelson’s impeachment after he blocked an executive order on DEI and Musk has also urged Congress to purge judges who rule against Trump. So I just like to note that not only would it be improper and unconstitutional to impeach judges because of their decisions, the e proper response is to appeal those decisions, but it has potentially the impact of intimidating judges who should be completely independent.”
Subcommittee Democrats detailed how Democrats and Republicans had a deal to create more federal judgeships—but House Republicans broke their word.
- Ranking Member Raskin said: “Democrats and Republicans agree the courts need more federal judges. […] We had a bipartisan deal last Congress to give the federal courts the added judges they need […] beginning with the next unknown president. […] Then the House Republican leadership suddenly broke the promise and refused to bring the bill up for a vote before the presidential election—before the next president was known. […] Itching to appoint loyal MAGA judges to the bench to uphold the lawlessness of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, they are happy to talk about creating new seats on the federal bench. They broke their deal and have undermined justice and the courts. We were willing to make a fair deal because we believe in ‘equal justice under law.’ They only believe in ‘heads I win, tails you lose,’” said Ranking Member Raskin in his opening statement.
- ·Rep. Deborah Ross said: “If this Committee was serious about addressing judicial shortages in an impartial manner, we would have passed the JUDGES Act last Congress, well before the last election, giving the first set of judgeships to an unknown president. So, today’s hearing isn’t about solving the real problem facing our judicial system.”
