A key Republican threw cold water Tuesday on calls by GOP colleagues to impeach federal judges, suggesting the proposals were politically symbolic but were unlikely to pass.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said some House Republicans may be introducing impeachment bills “because they were popular and felt strongly within their district, whether or not they were moving anywhere.”
Issa, the chair of a House Judiciary subcommittee on the courts, asked former Speaker Newt Gingrich if he agreed with that assessment. Gingrich, who was testifying as a former congressional leader, concurred that impeachment proposals have little chance of passing.
“They’re political symbols, not legislative symbols,” Gingrich responded, grinning.
The exchange came during a hearing Tuesday, chaired by Issa, on what Republicans claim has been “judicial overreach” during the early weeks of the Trump administration. Despite calls by President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and a small band of allies in Congress — frustrated by dozens of court orders that have declared key Trump policies illegal or unconstitutional — there’s been little momentum among House GOP leaders, who have privately insisted such efforts are going nowhere in the closely divided Capitol.
Issa instead sought to rally support for his own legislation that would limit the ability of judges to impose nationwide blocks on presidential policies they deem improper. He emphasized that, despite Democrats’ remarks, impeachment was not the focus of the hearing.
Without the votes in the House for impeachment, GOP leadership has been looking for an outlet for the fervor within the party’s conservative flank to target specific judges who have drawn Trump’s fury. Issa argued during the hearing that district court judges have far exceeded their constitutional powers, calling their rulings “the new resistance to the Trump administration.”
“Time and time again, rogue judges have asserted as though they were five of the nine members of the Supreme Court,” Issa said. “The reality is, every judge is considering himself not to be an associate justice, not to even be the chief justice, but, in fact, to be a combination of the justice and the president of the United States. This demands that we take a, make a change and make it quickly.”
Democrats, however, argued that the courts were functioning as a legitimate and necessary check on a president who has pushed the boundaries of the law and Constitution in unprecedented ways. It’s no accident, they argued, that Trump has faced more judicial resistance than his predecessors, who tailored policies to survive court scrutiny.
They repeatedly asked Republicans to speak to the calls from the right flank of the party for impeachments, as GOP lawmakers in the hearing shied away from the topic. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Republicans’ calls for impeachment have devolved into threats against and intimidation of federal officials.
“I call on my colleagues right now to call off the campaign to impeach federal judges for doing their jobs,” he said.
There was some skepticism from at least one House Republican to GOP efforts to limit the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) noted that Republicans cheered nationwide injunctions during the Biden administration when judges blocked several of his most sweeping policy efforts.
“This is a double-edged sword. He did unlawful and unconstitutional things during Covid that were stopped with nationwide injunctions,” Massie said. “I’m torn on this.”