Washington, D.C. (March 5, 2025)—Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, led subcommittee Democrats in calling out Republicans’ latest plot to put Donald Trump even further above the law and rig the legal system to benefit him and his cronies.
The hearing included testimony from: Elizabeth Beske, Associate Dean for Scholarship and Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law; Elizabeth Price Foley, Of Counsel, Baker & Hostetler LLP; George J. Terwilliger III, Former Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; and Daniel Epstein, Vice President, America First Legal.
Subcommittee Democrats emphasized that Republicans are taking their cues from President Trump and want to pass an unconstitutional bill to rig the rules and make it easier for Trump and his cronies to escape justice and avoid accountability in state court.
Ranking Member Scanlon raised issues with Republicans’ so-called “Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act”: “This legislation appears to be an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government and a direct infringement on states’ sovereignty that would upend the Framers’ carefully calibrated balance of power between what are supposed to be two equal sovereigns. In their shameless quest to help Donald Trump and his cronies evade justice in state courts, Republicans would have Congress exceed the scope of its authority to grant federal court jurisdiction over a host of state court cases. For all their talk about federalism, it begs the question: Is there any fundamental principle that House Republicans are not willing to abandon in servitude to this President?”
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove explained the motives of Republicans’ misguided legislation: “The only reason to do any of this is to be able to put one’s finger on the scale of justice and decide the outcome, and that’s not justice. What that really is a merger of the executive and judicial branches, and that is not constitutional here in the United States. The judicial branch is supposed to be independent and without an independent judiciary, there is no longer a system of checks and balances. […] This seems to be a violation of states’ rights to handle their own matters. It is a disastrous attempt to manipulate the judicial system, and it is a weaponization of waste, when in fact you will have more cases improperly or selectively prosecuted.”
Ranking Member Raskin said Republicans “want to pass something called the PEPPER Act to let Trump and his accomplices get their political corruption and election fixing cases removed from any state court in the land and put in front of far more submissive and pliant Trump appointees in federal court. […] This bill is designed to trash basic jurisprudential principles, including federalism, that have served us well since the 18th century. The conceit behind it is the pathetic claim that Donald Trump is just profoundly misunderstood and a victim of the judicial process and a target of unfair prosecutions, although no court has ever once found that.”
Subcommittee Democrats explained that the Trump Administration is currently using the Department of Justice (DOJ) to attack its perceived political enemies.
Ranking Member Raskin said: “Now, look, if you want to see real lawfare, if that’s something really in your scopes, then open your eyes to the U.S. Attorney’s office here in the District of Columbia. The pro-January 6th insurrectionist-turned-U.S. attorney for D.C. Ed Martin has fired more than a dozen career prosecutors focused on violent crime from his office simply for doing their jobs and doing their jobs well. […] That is lawfare. That is a violation of the due process rights as well as the civil service rights of American citizens who did nothing other than obey the law and do their jobs.”
Rep. Becca Balint asked Republican witness Mr. Terwilliger if he agrees that one of the most effective ways to fight corruption is to establish and maintain a group of nonpartisan prosecutors who are dedicated to the rule of law. Mr. Terwilliger replied, “I certainly agree with that.” Rep. Balint continued, “To stay with what you’re saying, the whole idea behind the Department of Justice, right, it’s supposed to be enforcing the law without fear or favor, correct? And, and that’s what the American people want. […] So far we’ve had a U.S. attorney publicly state that his office is composed of President Trump’s lawyers, not lawyers for the people, not lawyers supporting the Constitution, but President Trump’s lawyers. We’ve seen political purges of nonpartisan career civil servants because they did their jobs, including those who were involved in the January 6th prosecutions. And we’ve seen a shocking quid pro quo involving the indicted mayor of New York.”
Subcommittee Democrats made clear that House Republicans are complicit in supporting the Trump Administration’s corruption of equal justice and the rule of law to protect their friends or punish their perceived political enemies.
Ranking Member Scanlon said, “This bill goes a long way towards enshrining in American statute the idea that we’re ruled by a king, who’s above all law.”
Rep. Balint said: “What my Republican colleagues have done for many years, and in this committee as well, they’ve attacked prosecutors, they’ve attacked judges. They’ve dragged public servants down here for—baseless in my opinion—baseless depositions, sent letters full of baseless accusations, blasted theories, many of them hateful, all over the internet. And what happens then is that Americans become incredibly skeptical, cynical about whether is any such thing as a justice system without fear or favor. And I think that should scare all of us.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal said: “President Trump has a long and documented history of attacking the judiciary simply for following the law. […] Professor Beske, what effect does this kind of behavior towards the judiciary have on the integrity of the court system?” Professor Beske replied: “Well, it takes us into dangerous territory. The whole premise of Article III judges is, they have life tenure. The Framers tried to remove them from the political process. The whole idea was to have a body of judges free from political considerations. The idea of disobeying a court order, boy, that’s a constitutional crisis.”
In response to a question from Rep. Jayapal about the dangers of Republicans’ legislation to allow presidents to remove cases against them from state court to federal court, even for cases that have nothing to do with official conduct, Professor Beske explained: “Having two sovereigns in our system, states and the federal government, is a protection against tyranny. To take from states their ability to prosecute violations of state law in their own courts is very intrusive, and […] that’s a problem in our system.”
