How Mike Johnson and Jim Jordan could hit back at judges blocking Trump's agenda
Congressional Republicans are looking at a variety of options to stand up against what they see as "activist judges" blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Many of those options will likely be discussed at the House Judiciary's hearing on the matter next week, which sources expect to be scheduled for April 1.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., huddled privately with Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon to coalesce lawmakers around a bill up for a vote next week that would limit federal district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions.
One source familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital that Johnson suggested Republicans could look at other options as well, something conservatives are looking for. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital that the legislation was a "good start."
WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?
The No Rogue Rulings Act has support from both the White House and House GOP leadership. It’s expected to get a House-wide vote Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
Led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the legislation would force most district court judges to narrow most orders to the most relevant scope, therefore blocking them from pausing Trump’s policies across the U.S.
No Republican lawmaker has publicly expressed doubts about the bill, but conservatives have warned they want to see more from Congress on activist judges.
Both Johnson and top members of the House Judiciary Committee have floated using Congress’ power of the purse to rein in activist courts.
"We do have authority over the federal courts," Johnson said at his weekly press conference. "We do have power over funding, over the courts, and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."
But Congress controls government spending through several different mechanisms. Lawmakers have the power to set annual appropriations levels, to rescind that funding via a rescission package, and even leverage funding outside of Congress' yearly appropriations via the budget reconciliation process.
"I think we need to look at… funding scenarios. Now, that takes a little time; you've got to work through either the appropriations, rescissions or reconciliation process, depending on where it's appropriate," Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, chair of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, told Fox News Digital last week – while stressing he was not "for or against" any specific scenario.
Several Republicans have introduced resolutions to impeach various federal judges for blocking Trump's agenda, but there appears to be little appetite within the House GOP to pursue that lane.
Johnson signaled he was against the move during a closed-door meeting with Republicans on Tuesday morning, noting just 15 federal judges have been impeached in U.S. history.
'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO
"There was some innuendo there that, you know, impeachment has been reserved for judges with high crimes and misdemeanors, not because you disagree with his decisions," one House Republican said of Johnson's message.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Conservatives could attempt to force House GOP leaders to act by classifying their impeachment legislation as a "privileged resolution," meaning the House must hold at least a chamber-wide procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.
But it's not clear that will be pursued, either. Two Republicans who filed such resolutions – Reps. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, and Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis. – said they did not have current plans to make their resolutions privileged.
It's not a totally dismissed option, however, as leaders, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, continue to insist nothing is off the table.