Washington, D.C. (April 1, 2025)—Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Hank Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, and Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, led committee Democrats in countering House Republicans’ efforts to undermine the independent judiciary and retaliate against judges, all because Donald Trump is humiliated that courts across the country are blocking his lawless Executive Orders.
The hearing included testimony from: Kate Shaw, Professor of Law, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania; Newt Gingrich, Former Member of Congress for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, Former House Republican Speaker; Paul J. Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, Edwin, Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation; and Cindy Romero, Aurora, CO Resident.
MAGA Republicans want to change how the judicial system works because Donald Trump keeps losing in court.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal said: “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. If you try to eliminate birthright citizenship, jail people for free speech, slash funding and fire people and eliminate departments that are established by Congress, if you try to use Cold War era regulations to do mass deportations… Yeah, you’re gonna get nationwide injunctions. So maybe if you don’t like the injunctions, stop doing the illegal stuff.”
Rep. Joe Neguse pointed out how Republicans’ newfound animosity for nationwide injunctions seems only to apply to those against Republican administrations. After former Speaker Gingrich made clear that his outlook on nationwide injunctions was entirely dependent on whether a Democrat or a Republican was in the White House, Rep. Neguse said: “I didn’t hear much from you about ‘judicial coup d’etats’ when President Biden’s policies were being rejected by federal judges across the country. It is very convenient now, lo and behold that, that you take great issue and you describe it as a judicial coup d’etat when I didn’t hear these words two years ago” when some of President Biden’s policies were blocked in court.
Ranking Member Hank Johnson asked: “When you attack the judges and claim that they need to be impeached, not for high crimes and misdemeanors, but for simply ruling in a way that is against [Donald Trump], what impact does that have on our justice system and our democracy?” Professor Shaw replied: “I worry that 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, 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.”
An independent judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding Americans’ constitutional rights and preventing unlawful executive action.
Rep. Becca Balint and Professor Shaw provided Committee Republicans with a much-needed refresher on judicial independence. Rep Becca Balint asked, “Congress does not remove judges because of a disagreement with how they ruled. Is that correct? And why is that?” Professor Shaw explained: “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 opposed to the interests of the political powers or that runs against the political winds. Judicial independence requires judges to be confident and secure in their rulings and not fear the consequences of those rulings other than reversal on appeal.”
Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon said: “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?” Professor Shaw responded: “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. 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. So, 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 the core of our Constitution.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren asked why Trump and Republicans’ efforts to undermine judicial independence are so damaging to the separation of powers.Professor Shaw responded: “I do want to be clear that I think that there is a healthy inter-branch debate and dialogue that can include criticisms, including sharp criticisms of the rulings handed down by district judges […] 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 kind of interbranch warfare and the politicization of the judiciary that would be extremely damaging to judicial independence and to the role of courts in our democracy.”
Rep. Deborah Ross asked, “What Congress can do to stand up against Trump’s attacks on the judiciary to ensure it remains functioning, independent and co-equal in our system of governance.” Professor Shaw explained: “I certainly don’t think resolutions of impeachment for no other reason than rulings that Members disagree with, are constructive from the perspective of preserving judicial independence. One thing that I would imagine that bipartisan support could easily rally behind is judicial security, right? We are in a moment in which we have read about the U.S. Marshal Services’ concern about heightened levels of threats to federal judges.”
President Trump and MAGA Republicans want to impeach judges because they don’t like their rulings.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin asked: “Chief Justice John Roberts has said that the correct response to disagreement with the district court decision is to appeal it. I just heard Speaker Gingrich called this a ‘judicial coup d’etat,’ and he said the Chief Justice should stop lecturing the rest of us. Who’s right? Is it Newt Gingrich or is the Chief Justice Roberts?” Professor Shaw responded: “In this instance, Chief Justice Roberts. We have no tradition of impeaching judges. Appeal is the remedy for disagreeing with the district judge […]There are many remedies our system affords if there is some sort of problem with the judge presiding over a case, but impeachment has never been in that tool kit.”
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove said: “In organized sports, the most classless and unpalatable thing you can do is blame your loss on the referee, or blame the umpire for the outcome of the game […] The games do not work without officials and our system of justice does not work without judicial officials. Justice Roberts says, ‘All we do is call balls and strikes.’ Judges 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.”
Ranking Member Raskin said: “I call on my colleagues right now to call off the campaign to impeach federal judges for doing their jobs. I call on them to demand that the Trump Administration comply with all judicial orders while appealing whichever ones they want to appeal, and to demand the return of people unlawfully taken to El Salvador on that so-called plane full of ‘gang bangers.’ And I especially call on them today to denounce all violent threats, doxing, online vilification, and threats against our judges. This is the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives, and we should act like it.”
