Speaker Johnson Suggests Eliminating Federal Courts Amid Trump Pressure

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from conservative factions within his party, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., proposed the drastic measure of Congress eliminating certain federal courts as a response to judicial rulings against former President Donald Trump‘s administration. During a press briefing Tuesday, Johnson stated, “We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have the power of funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”

Johnson, a former constitutional attorney, later clarified that he intended to highlight Congress’ broad authority regarding the creation and governance of federal courts. This authority is established in Article III of the Constitution, which allows Congress to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts, including their funding and operations.

The effectiveness of such an action remains dubious. Historically, Congress has eliminated federal courts; in 1913, for instance, it abolished the Commerce Court, redistributing its judges to federal appellate courts. In 1982, Congress abolished the Article III Court of Claims and established new courts including the Article I Court of Federal Claims.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, announced plans for a hearing focused on federal judges, including those who have ruled unfavorably for Trump. Jordan mentioned that he is discussing possible “legislative remedies” with GOP appropriators. “We got money, spending, the appropriations process to help try to address some of this,” he added without detailing specific plans.

A proposal to defund certain courts is anticipated to become a contentious issue during bipartisan funding negotiations for the next fiscal year. However, gaining consensus within the Republican Party, which holds a slim majority, may prove challenging.

According to congressional sources, stripping funding for specific courts would require substantial support from key appropriators, particularly since the relevant appropriations subcommittee is headed by Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, a moderate member of the GOP. In addition, if such a bill were to clear the House, it would be unlikely to survive in the Senate, where a bipartisan effort would be necessary to overcome the legislative filibuster.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., expressed concern that eliminating a district court could exacerbate existing judicial backlogs. “My view is, I’d like to get more Republican judges on the bench,” Hawley stated. “If we take away seats, we can’t do that.”

Meanwhile, Johnson appears to be pursuing an alternative strategy to address court rulings against Trump, particularly a pending vote on a bill that would restrict district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. Johnson believes that some judges have overstepped their authority. “The judges, especially we’re talking about district court judges, are overstepping their boundaries,” Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., an ally of Johnson’s, remarked. “Absolutely, I appreciate” the Issa bill, he added, expressing possible support for further measures against the judiciary.