Wave of court orders blocking Trump's agenda are a 'judicial coup d'etat,' Gingrich says

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich condemned the wave of federal judges blocking President Donald Trump's agenda as a "judicial coup d'etat" on Tuesday.

Gingrich made the comments while testifying at a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing focused on "judicial overreach" by U.S. district court judges across the country. The former lawmaker highlighted that the vast majority of judges filing injunctions or restraining orders against Trump's executive actions have been appointed by Democrats.

"Mr. Gingrich, I'm told that 92% of the judges who have issued blanket injunctions against the administration have been appointed by Democrats. That at least suggests a partisan tilt to all of this… doesn't that undermine public confidence in our courts?" Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., asked at the hearing.

"If you look at the recent reports from various polling firms, clearly a majority of Americans believe that no single district judge should be able to issue a nationwide injunction," Gingrich responded.

"Look, my judgment is as a historian. This is clearly a judicial coup d'etat. You don't have this many different judges issue this many different nationwide injunctions – all of them coming from the same ideological and political background – and just assume it's all random efforts of justice," he continued.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

"This is a clear effort to stop the scale of change that President Trump represents," he added.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

Gingrich went on to argue that it is unacceptable for "random" judges to micromanage the president of the United States.

"They put both Americans and the nation at risk when they intervene to become basically alternative presidents. You now have potentially 677 alternative presidents, none of whom won an election," he said.

The best solution for the wave of injunctions is for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to intervene, Gingrich said. Roberts could ensure that any such rulings from lower federal courts could move straight up to the Supreme Court.

At the center of the court controversy is District Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to block the Trump administration from deporting members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador. Other judges have placed injunctions on Trump's efforts to trim down the federal government.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met privately with Republican judiciary committee members last week for what sources called a "brainstorming" session on how to respond to judges like Boasberg.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Ideas raised by lawmakers included a fast-tracked appeals process, wielding Congress’ spending power over the judiciary, and limiting the ability to "judge shop."

And some conservatives are eager to target specific judges they believe are abusing their power via the impeachment process, but House Republican leaders are wary of that route and believe it to be less effective than other legislative avenues.

Fox News' Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.