The House of Representatives held debate for H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:00For what purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, seek recognition?
00:00:06Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the bill, H.R. 1526, and ask
00:00:15for its immediate consideration in the House.
00:00:18The clerk will report the title of the bill.
00:00:20Union, calendar number 27, H.R. 1526, bill to amend Title 28, United States Code, to
00:00:27limit the authority of the District Courts to provide injunctive relief and for other
00:00:31purposes.
00:00:33Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
00:00:37by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill is adopted, and the bill as amended
00:00:42is considered read.
00:00:44The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by
00:00:49the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
00:00:54designees.
00:00:55The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin,
00:00:58each will control 30 minutes.
00:01:00The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.
00:01:04Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in
00:01:09which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1526.
00:01:15Without objection.
00:01:17Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
00:01:21The gentleman is recognized.
00:01:24Madam Speaker, in recent years, it has become glaringly obvious that federal judges are
00:01:31overstepping their constitutional bounds under Article III of the Constitution, which applies
00:01:38that lower courts are created under statute by the Congress.
00:01:44Pursuant to congressional action, district judges are limited to the plaintiffs before
00:01:50them that have nexus in their district.
00:01:54Madam Speaker, in short, that means that a district judge needs to be confined to their
00:02:01district and to people who are in their district.
00:02:05Case after case over decades has shown that when they fail to do so, the cases are thrown
00:02:11out.
00:02:12More importantly, if they were to continue to do what is generally called nationwide
00:02:21injunctions, then in fact there would be no need for a five to four or six to three decision
00:02:29by the high court.
00:02:31The high court of nine must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the
00:02:36land, and yet a single district judge believes that they can make the law of the land.
00:02:43Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with
00:02:50ideological judges who they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide
00:02:56injunctions to a small, to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives.
00:03:05Both of that occurred just yesterday when, by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet
00:03:11another judge's national ban was overturned.
00:03:15These actions touch on many of the most critical issues facing our countries, such as securing
00:03:22our borders, reforming insufficient and ineffective government bureaucracy, and strengthening
00:03:28our military.
00:03:30Let me be absolutely clear.
00:03:32These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at the worst.
00:03:38And don't just take my word for it.
00:03:41As late as October of last year, the Solicitor General of the Biden administration urged
00:03:49the end of these practices, stating that, in fact, the Biden administration has to win
00:03:55every time.
00:03:57The opposition only has to win one out of even a dozen cases.
00:04:02That is exactly the problem we are facing.
00:04:05The Supreme Court regularly considers cases that are done in the ordinary course, where
00:04:10one district judge, and perhaps a jury, rules one way and another rules another way.
00:04:16And the courts, through the appellate process, come up with a single law of the land.
00:04:24But they do so looking at the arguments of both winning and losing.
00:04:28And they do so while the administration is not nationally and internationally banned.
00:04:35National injunctions are being used to halt executive actions and executive orders, not
00:04:41just for plaintiffs before the court, but across the entire country, including individuals
00:04:47and entities that are not even parties to the litigation, and in many cases, may not
00:04:52favor the outcome and would not have been willing plaintiffs.
00:04:58This undermines the system of government.
00:05:01It empowers individual, unelected judges to dictate national policy and to thwart the
00:05:08Constitution, to take rights reserved to Congress and the President of the United States.
00:05:15NORA, the No Rogue Rulings Act, puts an end to this type of abuse.
00:05:21Under NORA, we reaffirm the principles that district court orders can only bind parties
00:05:28before the court and not non-parties across the country.
00:05:32This reform will also discourage the growing trend to forum shop.
00:05:38Because Madam Speaker, if you can go to Hawaii because you can find a judge that will rule
00:05:45against an action taken here in the District of Columbia, you will do so if you can get
00:05:51a nationwide injunction.
00:05:52If you can only enjoy individuals who may not even be affected by it, there's no incentive
00:05:59to do so.
00:06:01Madam Speaker, there are 677 current judge positions, not including those on senior status.
00:06:10677 individuals, each of whom can exceed their authority and stymie the legitimate actions
00:06:20of government.
00:06:21In some cases, these judges have even ordered the payment of amounts when the administration
00:06:27has determined that there is great risk of fraud.
00:06:33During the last administration, they objected to this.
00:06:37They tried to stop it.
00:06:38And even in the last days before the election, the Biden administration was doing everything
00:06:45they could to accomplish what we are doing here today.
00:06:49In fact, there was even legislation in the last Congress authored by Democrats to do
00:06:55it.
00:06:56This is not a partisan issue.
00:06:57It may be a timely issue for this president, but that does not make it partisan.
00:07:03To do the right thing at this time is critical.
00:07:06And I urge my colleagues to support the No Rogue Rulings Act and restore the constitutional
00:07:11balance and respect for separation of powers.
00:07:15And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
00:07:17And the gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:07:20Thank you, Madam Speaker.
00:07:21Mr. Issa, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526.
00:07:26I heard the majority was bringing legislation forward to clean up a major policy crisis
00:07:31taking place within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, and that sounded
00:07:36pretty good to me because we're drowning in crises.
00:07:39The problem is that this bill does not address any of the real major policy crises of the
00:07:45first 100 days that Trump has caused for America.
00:07:48They are wasting our time with this bill by misdiagnosing and mislabeling the judicial
00:07:54response to these crises as a crisis itself.
00:07:59The whole country is reeling right now from the economic disaster Trump has plunged us
00:08:04into.
00:08:05He destroyed more than $10 trillion in American wealth in a single week.
00:08:10And then he went golfing and bragged to America about winning the tournament at his own golf
00:08:15course.
00:08:16That's like bragging about being endorsed by your own campaign manager.
00:08:21So much winning.
00:08:22The country can hardly stand how much winning Trump is doing for himself and Elon Musk and
00:08:27his billionaire cabinet.
00:08:29Perhaps he could have yelled four on the Greenway so tens of millions of Americans could have
00:08:33taken our retirement savings out of the stock market before he hit us in the head with a
00:08:38golf ball.
00:08:40Trump's ruinous tariffs have crushed our relationships with democratic allies and loyal
00:08:45trade partners like Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, France, while delicately carving
00:08:51out an exception for Trump's friends in the home office back in Russia.
00:08:57When asked why Putin uniquely escapes the wrath of Trump's global trade war, we're told
00:09:03it's because Trump doesn't want to interfere with the negotiations taking place between
00:09:07Russia and Ukraine for a ceasefire, an explanation that might have somewhat more force if Trump
00:09:14had not made sure that the tariffs do apply to Ukraine, as they do.
00:09:21The basis for this most imbecilic and destructive trade war in the history of the world is the
00:09:27profound economic research and policy writings of one Ron Vera, a completely fictional economist
00:09:36conjured up by Trump advisor Peter Navarro, a real person who Elon Musk just called, quote,
00:09:43a moron and dumb as a sack of bricks.
00:09:46Navarro's last name, delightfully, is an anagram for Ron Vera.
00:09:54You can try this yourself at home.
00:09:56Navarro turns into Ron Vera.
00:09:59Navarro figured that out himself, perhaps the greatest achievement of the Trump administration
00:10:04so far.
00:10:05What an enchanting and clever basis upon which to crash the economy of the United States
00:10:12of America.
00:10:13Well, despite the fact that Congress, not the president, has the power to regulate international
00:10:19commerce and legislate tariffs, our GOP colleagues don't even want to have one hearing on the
00:10:26breathtaking economic folly and wreckage of this fling into the abyss of trade war with
00:10:33the world.
00:10:34Much less do they want to do anything to reverse this policy nightmare for tens of millions
00:10:39of business people, farmers, workers, retirees, and consumers being throttled by this historic
00:10:46self-inflicted wound.
00:10:48No, today they want to talk about the real emergency, which is the power of United States
00:10:54district courts to issue universal injunctions rather than just injunctions that apply to
00:11:01the specific parties in the case.
00:11:03It seems like a rather boutique and esoteric issue to raise in the middle of an economic
00:11:09catastrophe that they just foist upon America, but there's a method to the madness.
00:11:15You see, federal judges have issued at least 68 court orders that block or pause the administration's
00:11:22lawlessness to prevent irreparable harm in the country from his unconstitutional actions.
00:11:29The judges deciding here were appointed by five different presidents, both Democratic
00:11:34presidents and Republican presidents in 11 district district courts across seven circuits.
00:11:40The judges have explained in painstaking detail what is unlawful about Trump's executive orders
00:11:47and actions.
00:11:48Trump has offered no substantive critique of their legal reasoning, but he and Musk
00:11:53still want the judges impeached.
00:11:56They say they should be removed from office simply for striking down the president's illegal
00:12:01policies, which is odd given that Trump and his party demanded for four years that federal
00:12:07judges strike down president Biden's policies like student loan forgiveness or immigration
00:12:13policies or EPA action on climate change.
00:12:17They seem to embrace Marbury versus Madison and judicial review of Democratic presidential
00:12:22actions, but not of Republican actions.
00:12:26Well, they say that's because Trump just won an election.
00:12:30He beat Kamala Harris by 2 million votes.
00:12:32Well guess what?
00:12:33Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes and that didn't stop them from suing
00:12:40the stop numerous Biden policies they thought were unlawful.
00:12:44Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost.
00:12:46It's the same now.
00:12:48Nearly 160 cases have been brought against Trump and Musk's actions.
00:12:52Trump's won some and he's lost some, but our colleagues protest that Trump is different
00:12:57because the courts have issued relief in at least 57 different cases, a record number
00:13:02of cases in American history at record speed.
00:13:06True.
00:13:07But if it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall
00:13:12that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity
00:13:20never seen before in US history.
00:13:22As of today, he's already issued 111 executive orders in less than 100 days.
00:13:28Biden issued 162 in all four years.
00:13:31Trump can issue as many as he wants, but he's got to make them constitutional because if
00:13:35they're not, they're going to get struck down.
00:13:38And when Trump denounces the judges as radical left judges and lunatics who've gone rogue
00:13:43like Judge Boasberg, he's just advertising his complete ignorance of the federal bench.
00:13:50Judge Boasberg is the chief judge of the US District Court, first nominated to the bench
00:13:55by President George W. Bush, who was Justice Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale and a pillar
00:14:00of the conservative bar.
00:14:02We've impeached only 15 judges in US history, always for serious misconduct like taking
00:14:08bribes, embezzlement, corruption, habitual drunkenness on the bench.
00:14:13Never because of a doctrinal disagreement.
00:14:16Never because of a judge's legal ruling.
00:14:19As Chief Justice Roberts said a few weeks ago, the proper response in our democracy
00:14:23to a judicial decision that you disagree with is to appeal the ruling, not impeach the judge.
00:14:29And Donald Trump has gotten some relief in some of his cases already.
00:14:34The system's working.
00:14:35We don't need to turn the whole world upside down to distract from the economic calamities
00:14:39they've brought upon us.
00:14:41And all of this would be fun and games, except the rhetorical assault by Trump and Musk and
00:14:46our colleagues against the judiciary has turned into something far more sinister in
00:14:50some quarters.
00:14:51Death threats, bomb threats, online intimidation and harassment of judges.
00:14:56These judges are currently targets of an onslaught of social media taunts and attacks that call
00:15:02for their exile to Gitmo or label them a national security threat or traitors.
00:15:07Even worse, this campaign of vilification has spread to their families, including attacks
00:15:12on a federal judge's daughter who had her photo in place of work posted on a social
00:15:17media site by Elyon Musk to his 290 million followers.
00:15:22These threats followed an actual bomb threat targeting the sister of Supreme Court Justice
00:15:27Amy Coney Barrett.
00:15:29It's a dangerous situation.
00:15:30Well, now our colleagues want to pass the No Rogue Rulings Act, which would effectively
00:15:35ban federal district courts from providing nationwide relief against unlawful actions
00:15:40by the administration.
00:15:42Litigants could request injunctive relief only with respect to themselves.
00:15:46So for example, if the president establishes a church or bans newspapers or imposes martial
00:15:52law, each citizen in America would have to bring his or her own case because the courts
00:15:58would not be able to rule to strike down unconstitutional action generally.
00:16:03That is patently absurd and we're going to be able to explain how this legislation is
00:16:08a massive distraction from the issues that are really facing America we reserve.
00:16:14Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president.
00:16:19Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California.
00:16:23Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimate for this bill be included
00:16:28in the record.
00:16:29Objection.
00:16:30Mr. Speaker, I now yield two minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina.
00:16:35The gentleman is recognized.
00:16:37Mr. Speaker, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:16:39Mr. Speaker, all across the country, at record level, activist judges are impeding President
00:16:45Trump's America's First agenda with nationwide injunctions and depriving the American people
00:16:52of the changes they demanded in November.
00:16:55To put how unprecedented this is into perspective, President Trump has faced more than twice
00:17:01as many nationwide injunctions as Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden combined.
00:17:07In addition, more than 90 percent of these nationwide injunctions have been issued by
00:17:11Democrat-appointed judges.
00:17:14I'm calling this what it is, weaponized political lawfare.
00:17:19There are 677 district court judgeships nationwide and as of now, if just one of these judges
00:17:26decides to block an executive action, they can single-handedly halt the President's agenda.
00:17:33I'm sure our founders did not envision this extreme constitutional overreach from the
00:17:38judicial branch.
00:17:39Fortunately, Congressman Issa's No Rogue Rulings Act will correct this discrepancy by ensuring
00:17:45that district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions.
00:17:51The American people demand sweeping change from us, from cutting waste, fraud, and abuse
00:17:58In our bloated federal government, deporting the millions of illegal alien invaders, we
00:18:03need to make progress.
00:18:05Right now, a single district court judge can impede this progress on a whim, essentially
00:18:11holding the America First agenda hostage indefinitely.
00:18:15This must end.
00:18:17I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on the No Rogue Rulings Act to
00:18:22stop this judicial tyranny from harming the American people.
00:18:26And Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
00:18:29I reserve the rest.
00:18:30The gentleman reserves.
00:18:31The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:18:33I yield two minutes to the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
00:18:37The lady is recognized.
00:18:39Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:18:40I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526, a bill that would prohibit district courts from issuing
00:18:45nationwide injunctions.
00:18:48My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want you to believe that somehow these nationwide
00:18:52injunctions being issued by courts across the country against Donald Trump's illegal
00:18:58and unconstitutional actions are unfair.
00:19:01Well, here's the message.
00:19:03If you don't like the injunctions, don't do illegal, unconstitutional stuff.
00:19:08That simple.
00:19:10Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the
00:19:14political branches accountable.
00:19:16Without them, thousands or millions of people could be harmed by these illegal or unconstitutional
00:19:22government policies.
00:19:24Just look at Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship.
00:19:28In a lawsuit brought in my home state of Washington, a Reagan-appointed federal judge, not a Democratic-appointed
00:19:35federal judge, a Reagan-appointed federal judge ruled that the order was, quote, blatantly
00:19:40unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment plainly states that, quote, all persons born
00:19:46in the United States are U.S. citizens.
00:19:49What's next?
00:19:50Stripping citizenship from U.S. citizens?
00:19:52That's in the Trump extremist playbook as well.
00:19:56So is, apparently, kidnapping and disappearing people, including those with legal status
00:20:01without any due process, or getting rid of entire departments established by Congress,
00:20:06or suppressing freedom of speech and dissent.
00:20:09These are the hallmarks of an authoritarian who wants to hold all power, and the courts
00:20:14are doing what they are supposed to do, issuing nationwide injunctions against this kind of
00:20:19abuse of power.
00:20:20Somehow, my colleagues never complained about nationwide injunctions when dozens were issued
00:20:25against former Presidents Obama and Biden.
00:20:27But now that it's against Donald Trump, they want to rig the rules to give the President
00:20:32free reign to do whatever he wants, regardless of whether it is illegal or unconstitutional.
00:20:38Well, get this.
00:20:39We do not have kings in America.
00:20:42Vote no on this bill.
00:20:43I yield back.
00:20:48We reserve.
00:20:49The gentleman reserves.
00:20:50Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
00:20:55The gentleman from California is recognized.
00:20:58Madam, Mr. Speaker, I now would yield two minutes to the gentleman from Missouri.
00:21:05The gentleman is recognized.
00:21:07Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:21:08Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the No Rogue Rulings Act.
00:21:12Historically, district courts' rulings only applied to the parties before the court.
00:21:17But over the past 15 years, district courts have increasingly asserted that their rulings
00:21:22apply nationwide, interfering with the legitimate Article II powers of the President of the
00:21:28United States.
00:21:30We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d'etat.
00:21:36In February alone, district judges issued more nationwide injunctions against President
00:21:42Trump than against Bush, Obama, and Biden during their entire administrations.
00:21:49District judges from Democrat jurisdictions are preventing the President from fulfilling
00:21:54his duty to keep us safe.
00:21:57Last night, the Supreme Court called out judge shopping and reversed an order issued by a
00:22:02Democrat-appointed D.C. judge that blocked the Trump administration from removing violent
00:22:08Venezuelan drug members from our country.
00:22:11The Supreme Court said that this case should never have been brought in D.C., but rather
00:22:16in Texas, where the individuals can file individual petitions challenging their individual cases.
00:22:25The Supreme Court can and should rein in these rogue courts.
00:22:28In the meantime, the No Rogue Rulings Act rebalances the separation of powers as the
00:22:34founders intended.
00:22:35I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this critical legislation.
00:22:40Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:22:41I yield back.
00:22:42The gentleman from California Reserves, the gentleman from Maryland, is recognized.
00:22:46Yes, I'd like to introduce for the record the lost history of the universal injunction,
00:22:50a law review article by Mila Sahony refuting what was just stated by the gentleman.
00:22:55The universal injunction, the nationwide injunction, goes back at least to 1913 and
00:23:00has been used repeatedly over the last century.
00:23:03I yield two minutes.
00:23:04Without objection.
00:23:06I yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, the ranking member
00:23:10of our Courts and IP Subcommittee.
00:23:12The gentleman is recognized.
00:23:14Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member.
00:23:16Mr. Speaker, the judicial branch ensures that people, corporations, and even other branches
00:23:22of government follow the law.
00:23:25And if a president does something illegal, which this president is famous for, the only
00:23:32way for the courts to prevent thousands of people from being harmed is to order a nationwide
00:23:38injunction that stops him from doing that illegal thing.
00:23:44It is essential to our democracy that the courts can serve as a check on a president
00:23:50who is trampling people's rights.
00:23:53While proponents of the bill say that each aggrieved person should bring their own case,
00:24:00that just does not make sense.
00:24:02There is no way that each of the thousands of people harmed could pay for their own lawyer,
00:24:09get into a courtroom, and try their own case.
00:24:12Aside from the difficulty and cost to everyone, our courts could never handle that volume
00:24:19of cases.
00:24:20With dockets already bursting at the seams, justice would be delayed.
00:24:26It would be so delayed that it would be denied.
00:24:29It would be inefficient, costly, prohibitive, and unfair.
00:24:34And that is what Republicans want, because federal courts keep ruling against Trump's
00:24:40unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions.
00:24:44Therefore, they are trying to hamstring the courts so that Trump can't be stopped.
00:24:49We need our courts to continue to serve as a bulwark of democracy against the Trump administration's
00:24:55flood of illegal actions.
00:24:58That is why I rise today in opposition to this bill, and with that I yield back.
00:25:05Mr. Speaker, I do have a unanimous consent request to enter into the record.
00:25:12I have a April 2nd letter addressed to Pam Bondi from 500 law firms and lawyers across
00:25:19the nation, attacking the—
00:25:24Without objection, it will be entered into record.
00:25:27And, Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and some Republicans have assailed the clearly unlawful
00:25:35nature of this trade war instituted by President Trump based on tariffs against the entire
00:25:42world except for Vladimir Putin in Russia.
00:25:46And Congress has the power under Article 1 of the Constitution to regulate commerce internationally.
00:25:51We've got the power over tariffs.
00:25:53The President purportedly is asserting powers under a statute which applies to emergencies
00:26:00in extraordinary and unusual situations.
00:26:02When he said this has been going on for a decade after decade after decade, well then
00:26:07how could that be an emergency?
00:26:09How could that be extraordinary and unusual?
00:26:11There will be a lawsuit on this.
00:26:13And what our colleagues are saying is that if there is a bipartisan lawsuit which goes
00:26:18to court, which stops these tariffs that are crippling business and farmers and wiping
00:26:24out people's retirement across the country, and they succeed in one district, say in Minnesota
00:26:29or Wisconsin or New York, you've got to go to every one of 94 different districts in
00:26:34the country to get the benefit of that.
00:26:37That's what they want to do.
00:26:38We reserve.
00:26:39Gentlemen, we reserve.
00:26:40Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
00:26:45The gentleman from California is recognized.
00:26:48Mr. Speaker, I did ask unanimous consent that all members be able to place extraneous material
00:26:53into the record.
00:26:56I guess they're taking me up on it.
00:26:57With that, I'd recognize the gentleman from Kansas for two minutes.
00:27:01The gentleman is recognized.
00:27:02Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the gentleman from California for bringing
00:27:06us this important piece of legislation.
00:27:09I haven't been here very long in this body, but I've learned something and it's amplified
00:27:13today.
00:27:14And that is that this town has a remarkable ability to snatch disagreement out of the
00:27:21jaws of consensus.
00:27:24This is an issue that liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers have both said there
00:27:30is a problem we ought to address.
00:27:33Justice Kagan has been quoted widely as having said that it just cannot be the case that
00:27:39a single district court judge can hold up federal policy for the lengthy period of time
00:27:45nationwide that it takes for the ordinary appeals process to run.
00:27:49And on the other end, Justice Gorsuch has suggested that these nationwide injunctions
00:27:54bear a remarkable similarity to a step in the legislative, not judicial process.
00:28:01And in our branch of government, we had Democrats in both bodies of the legislative branch who
00:28:06proposed legislation just to Congress ago saying this is a problem, we ought to deal
00:28:11with it.
00:28:12And their legislation looked a lot like part of this bill, three judge panels.
00:28:16And now we have Republicans saying the same thing.
00:28:19We ought to agree this is just the right thing to do as a matter of public policy, not because
00:28:24of who is in the White House or who is the plaintiff bringing a particular lawsuit.
00:28:30Look, district courts are supposed to resolve disputes between litigants.
00:28:35If we adopt this thing and make it law, there's no doubt any citizen who can walk into court
00:28:40today can still walk into court and get relief for anything they're entitled to relief for.
00:28:45What they can't do is get a district court judge to order that an entire federal policy
00:28:50nationwide be disabled.
00:28:53Now there's still a relief valve because we added up an amendment in committee that allows
00:28:57states to go into court and seek that type of nationwide relief.
00:29:02Why?
00:29:03Because states are unique.
00:29:04It's not the National Association of People Who Lost Last Year's Election.
00:29:07It is a state organized under our Constitution who have a unique role in our federal system
00:29:12and an interest in nationwide relief.
00:29:14So we ought to adopt this bill and do what everybody agrees is the right thing.
00:29:19I yield.
00:29:20The gentleman reserves.
00:29:21The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:29:25I yield two minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Neva.
00:29:28Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:29:29The Trump administration is the most lawless in American history.
00:29:33That is why so many of its policies are being blocked through nationwide injunctions.
00:29:37Republicans see this as evidence of some liberal plot among the judiciary.
00:29:41But the judges who have ruled against him, some appointed by such noted liberals as
00:29:52George Bush and Ronald Reagan, are not part of some grand conspiracy to stop the Trump
00:29:57agenda.
00:29:58They are following the law and the facts wherever they lead them.
00:30:01And in case after case, the law and the facts are squarely against Donald Trump and his
00:30:06administration.
00:30:07Whether it be his efforts to rewrite the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship
00:30:12or his scheme to deport immigrants without even the barest hint of due process, the courts
00:30:16have properly acted as a check on his power.
00:30:19So how do Republicans respond?
00:30:21Not by urging the administration to stay on the right side of the law and the Constitution.
00:30:25No, they simply want to make it harder for anyone to hold this lawless administration
00:30:30accountable.
00:30:31This bill would prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions even when the
00:30:35policies they find unlawful or unconstitutional have nationwide effects.
00:30:40That would be as if Brown v. Board of Education applied only to Brown.
00:30:45To do so would mean that no one could ever effectively check any administration's power
00:30:49and no administration could ever be held accountable.
00:30:52The president would be a real, not a would-be, dictator.
00:30:55This bill is a dangerous threat to the rule of law.
00:30:58This bill is not intended to curtail rogue judges from issuing rogue rulings.
00:31:02It is intended to enable a rogue administration to continue to violate the law.
00:31:07I urge all members to oppose this legislation and they yield back.
00:31:11And we reserve.
00:31:12The gentleman reserves.
00:31:13The gentleman from California is recognized.
00:31:15Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can just consider that every time the other side speaks, they
00:31:20will be speaking in violation of our rules about disparaging the president and need not
00:31:25say it each time, I trust.
00:31:28With that, I would ask to yield two minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
00:31:34The gentleman is recognized.
00:31:37Mr. Speaker, in order for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that affects the entire
00:31:41nation, at least five justices of the Supreme Court must concur.
00:31:47Yet today, individual district court judges are asserting this authority by themselves.
00:31:52This is an outrageous abuse of public trust and judicial power, and it's open to Pandora's
00:31:58box that threatens the fundamental constitutional order.
00:32:02The Congress is elected to make law.
00:32:04The president is elected to enforce it.
00:32:07The judiciary is appointed for the sole purpose of resolving cases and controversies brought
00:32:13to it by individual injured parties.
00:32:16Traditionally, that means an injured party seeks redress through his local district court.
00:32:21This simple process assures decisions are limited to the unique circumstances of the
00:32:26individuals involved and are restricted to cases within that district, subject to appeal,
00:32:32first to the circuit court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
00:32:37This assures that multiple voices contribute to the development of a legal consensus before
00:32:42the matter reaches the Supreme Court.
00:32:44A single district judge seizing this authority for himself utterly short circuits this process
00:32:50and does incalculable injury to our Constitution.
00:32:54The fact that 92% of the nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump have been issued
00:32:59by district court judges appointed by Democrats, many with long histories of political activism,
00:33:05gravely undermines the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
00:33:11Now I'm disappointed that the Supreme Court has not set its own house in order by restoring
00:33:16the judicial guardrails to protect us from judge shopping, from political activism masquerading
00:33:22as judicial deliberation, and from the usurpation of the constitutional powers conferred upon
00:33:28the elected President in Congress.
00:33:31Four justices have signaled their readiness to do so.
00:33:34But without a fifth, Congress is left with no alternative but to act on its own authority
00:33:40and with this bill, it does.
00:33:42I yield back.
00:33:45Gentleman reserves.
00:33:46The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:33:47Yeah, you know, Mr. Speaker, nationwide injunctions are something that my friends across the aisle
00:33:52not only endorsed but took liberal advantage of in the last administration.
00:33:56Remember Judge Matt Kaczmarek of the Northern District of Texas?
00:34:00They were lining up around the block to go forum shopping in his little district because
00:34:04he was the only judge to get cases against Biden there.
00:34:08And then they praised the nationwide injunctions he issued.
00:34:11The gentleman who just spoke signed a letter in praise of a nationwide injunction that
00:34:16was offered by Judge Kaczmarek.
00:34:18So if you want to change your position, fine, but please explain to us why your position
00:34:23has changed since you were praising nationwide injunctions in the last administration.
00:34:27I yield two minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Colorado.
00:34:30The gentleman is recognized.
00:34:31I want to thank the ranking member for his leadership, and I want to echo his remarks.
00:34:37It is difficult to listen to this debate, to hear the arguments peddled by my colleagues
00:34:44that are hypocritical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
00:34:50Where were my colleagues when 14 federal judges appointed by Republican presidents issued
00:34:57injunctions against policies that the Biden administration was pursuing over the course
00:35:02of the last four years?
00:35:03Where were you?
00:35:04Nowhere to be found.
00:35:05I don't remember my colleagues bringing this bill to the floor.
00:35:09Of course not.
00:35:11Spare me your feigned indignation.
00:35:14They talk of defending the Constitution when President Trump is running roughshod over
00:35:20provision after provision.
00:35:22They talk of judicial overreach as they attack judges across the country.
00:35:29Read the Constitution.
00:35:31Read the Federalist Papers.
00:35:34Read about the importance that our framers and founders placed on judicial independence
00:35:40and reflect on what your conduct will do to the administration of justice in the United
00:35:48States of America, to the rule of law that has been sacrosanct for the better part of
00:35:52two and a half centuries.
00:35:55I just, I cannot believe, I suppose I should, but I cannot believe that my colleagues would
00:36:04waste time on a bill like this, a dangerous bill, instead of addressing the consequential
00:36:14challenges that our country faces.
00:36:16I would urge every colleague of mine, vote no on this bill.
00:36:21And I yield back.
00:36:22I want to thank the gentleman for his astute observations there and just say that Judge
00:36:27Kaczmarek was several times reversed by higher courts.
00:36:31We never came out and said, therefore, let's ban nationwide injunctions.
00:36:35We did say, let's reform judge shopping, forum shopping.
00:36:38That's the real problem.
00:36:39But it's not a problem if there is a nationwide crisis created by illegal action by an executive
00:36:46that a judge has the authority to counter that with an injunction and then it gets appealed
00:36:51up to the Supreme Court.
00:36:52We reserve.
00:36:53Gentleman from Maryland Reserves, gentleman from California is recognized.
00:36:57Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:36:58I now would ask to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full committee,
00:37:03Mr. Jordan.
00:37:04The chairman from Ohio is recognized.
00:37:05Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:37:06I thank the gentleman for yielding.
00:37:08Six hundred and seventy-seven federal district judges are just that, judges.
00:37:11They're not the President of the United States.
00:37:14They're not the person who put his name on the ballot, ran nationwide, got seventy-seven
00:37:18million votes, won the Electoral College, head of the executive branch.
00:37:21They're judges.
00:37:23District judges.
00:37:24I said this in committee.
00:37:26The real question ultimately is who gets to decide.
00:37:30Some district judge or the guy who put his name on the ballot.
00:37:33Some bureaucrat or the guy who ran for the office and got elected by We the People.
00:37:38That's the fundamental question.
00:37:39And guess what?
00:37:40We just got two decisions from the United States Supreme Court which seem to reinforce
00:37:44that fundamental principle that the guy who runs and heads the executive branch should
00:37:48make the decision.
00:37:50Two days ago, the Supreme Court said they're going to put a hold on the time on this Judge
00:37:54Boasberg and this migrant issue that's been with us for the last three weeks.
00:37:58And then yesterday, the Supreme Court said to this unelected district judge in California
00:38:05that thinks they get to decide how many probationary employees work in the executive branch, not
00:38:10the guy who heads the executive branch.
00:38:13They said no to that, those left-wing groups who were seeking standing in that case.
00:38:18Both decisions are wins for the Constitution, wins for the rule of law, wins for the executive
00:38:24branch and maybe most importantly, wins for common sense.
00:38:28I think I've been pointing this out since Judge Boasberg issued his order.
00:38:34When he said turn the plane around, bring back the bad guys, bring back the illegal
00:38:39migrants in this terrorist organization, turn the plane around, bring them back, that makes
00:38:44no sense.
00:38:45It makes no sense and the American people understand it.
00:38:49So I want to thank Mr. Issa for this good piece of legislation that we passed out of
00:38:54the committee, I think, four weeks ago.
00:38:56I want to thank Representative Schmidt who added the good amendment to it that I think
00:39:00makes a good bill even stronger and I would urge adoption of the legislation.
00:39:05With that, I yield back to our chairman.
00:39:06The gentleman from California Reserves, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:39:10Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:39:11Just to answer a couple of things raised by my friend from Ohio.
00:39:16First of all, that's not what the Supreme Court said.
00:39:18The Supreme Court simply said that this was not a case that should be going through the
00:39:23Administrative Procedure Act under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
00:39:28It should be done through habeas corpus in the District of Confinement in Texas.
00:39:33So in effect, the Supreme Court affirmed that there must be due process for people who were
00:39:38illegally taken out of this country and sent to El Salvador.
00:39:43Secondly, the gentleman gives us a false choice when he says, well, who gets to decide?
00:39:48Is it the person who puts his name on the ballot and goes out and campaigns or is it
00:39:51an unelected federal district judge?
00:39:53Well decide what?
00:39:54If we're talking about deciding the constitutionality of a law, obviously it's the judge under Marbury
00:39:59versus Madison.
00:40:00And I know the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows that.
00:40:03The fact that Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by two million votes is neither here nor there.
00:40:09Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by seven million votes and they still went to court pretty
00:40:13much on a weekly basis to try to get Joe Biden's legislation and his program struck down.
00:40:19They believed in judicial review then.
00:40:22And so we should understand that it's very convenient for them to say all of a sudden
00:40:27they don't believe in judicial review just because they've got the presidency.
00:40:30I yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Ross.
00:40:36Thank you very much, Mr. Ranking Member.
00:40:38Mr. Speaker, Article 3 of our constitution vests judicial power of the United States
00:40:45in the Supreme Court and lower courts.
00:40:50The constitution says that this power extends to all cases arising under the constitution
00:40:59or laws passed by Congress.
00:41:02This is a bedrock principle of American democracy and it is not up for debate.
00:41:10But now that the courts are blocking his unconstitutional and unlawful actions, Donald Trump wants to
00:41:19claim the power for himself and his administration.
00:41:24Trump does not subscribe to the principle of judicial review and he doesn't believe
00:41:30in the sanctity of the constitution.
00:41:33He cares only about himself and getting his own way.
00:41:38Now Trump and his followers are threatening judges with impeachment and far worse.
00:41:45Non-threats, harassing calls and swatting all send the same terrifying message.
00:41:55We know where you and your family live and you better get out of the president's way.
00:42:04President Trump's attacks on the judiciary are clear violations of his oath of office
00:42:11to protect and defend the constitution.
00:42:15Mr. Speaker, threats to judges and their families simply cannot be tolerated.
00:42:22And members of this body have a profound responsibility to speak with one voice to condemn these reprehensible
00:42:31tactics.
00:42:32I implore my Republican colleagues to set politics aside and do the right thing.
00:42:41For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill
00:42:47back to committee.
00:42:49If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with important amendments
00:42:56to this bill.
00:42:58My amendment would simply reaffirm the legislative branch's support for its co-equal branch and
00:43:07condemn attacks on all members of the judiciary.
00:43:12I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment.
00:43:19I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit and I yield back.
00:43:26The gentleman from California reserves, the gentleman from Maryland reserves, the gentleman
00:43:30from California is recognized.
00:43:33Thank you Mr. Speaker.
00:43:34I now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from Colorado.
00:43:37Woman is recognized.
00:43:38Thank you Mr. Speaker.
00:43:39I rise in support of the No Rogue Rulings Act, a bold and necessary step to bring in
00:43:46activist judges who have made it their sole mission to obstruct the agenda of President
00:43:53Donald J. Trump.
00:43:55Let's be clear about what is at stake.
00:43:58In November 2024, the American people gave President Trump a mandate to secure our borders,
00:44:04shrink a bloated federal bureaucracy and put America first.
00:44:10He's acted swiftly with over 100 executive orders in just three months to deliver on
00:44:16those promises that he made to the American people.
00:44:19But what have we seen?
00:44:21Unelected judges have issued sweeping nationwide injunctions to stop him at every turn.
00:44:29Fifty-three lawsuits already halting deportations of dangerous criminal aliens, blocking cuts
00:44:37to wasteful spending and tying the hands of a president doing his best to protect America.
00:44:46This isn't justice, it's judicial tyranny.
00:44:50The No Rogue Rulings Act says enough is enough.
00:44:53It's simple common sense fix.
00:44:56No single district judge should have the power to grind the entire nation to a halt with
00:45:01one rogue ruling.
00:45:03Why should a single unelected judge figure override the votes of 80 million Americans?
00:45:12This is not how our Constitution was designed.
00:45:15The Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to check the courts and it's time we began
00:45:23using it.
00:45:24Take Judge James Borsig's ruling last month halting deportations of Venezuelan gang members
00:45:31under the Alien Enemies Act.
00:45:33President Trump invoked a law from 1798 to protect our streets and one judge decided
00:45:39he knows better than the commander-in-chief.
00:45:42It's time to take our government back from the black-robed bureaucrats.
00:45:46I support this bill and I thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for introducing
00:45:52it.
00:45:54And I might note the gentlelady's referring to what has now been affirmed as an inaccurate
00:46:01decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
00:46:05So my colleagues on the other side in disparaging the president keep using the word illegal.
00:46:12I would ask that they really reconsider.
00:46:15They may disagree with the executive actions of the president.
00:46:18From time to time the court may disagree.
00:46:21But in fact, not only are his actions not illegal, they are well within the reach of
00:46:27what any president trying to defend the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic,
00:46:33might well do.
00:46:35We can disagree about the meaning of a law that's been on the books for 225 years.
00:46:41We should not disparage the motives or the actions of the chief executive simply because
00:46:48we disagree.
00:46:49With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
00:46:51The gentleman from California reserves.
00:46:52The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:46:55The Supreme Court has already rejected at least two of the actions that Donald Trump
00:46:59has taken since he got in.
00:47:00One was firing the executive director of the Office of Special Counsel.
00:47:05He was reinstated.
00:47:06The other was reinstating a $2.1 billion aid grant that was essentially impounded and diverted
00:47:13by the administration.
00:47:14I yield one minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Representative Sue
00:47:18Romano.
00:47:19The gentleman is recognized.
00:47:20Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
00:47:22Let's take a step back and be clear what's going on here.
00:47:24This administration maybe didn't have the votes or will to get legislation through Congress,
00:47:29so it created these executive orders and broke the law in doing so.
00:47:34Some of these orders were unconstitutional, and that's why there have been so many injunctions
00:47:38to stop the law breaking.
00:47:40These injunctions were celebrated by the other side when they stopped actions under previous
00:47:43Democratic administrations, but now that President Trump is in office, this bill exists to help
00:47:47the president do whatever he wants, even if it's unconstitutional.
00:47:51I get asked a lot these days, what's going to happen when this president ignores the
00:47:56courts?
00:47:57Wouldn't we have a constitutional crisis on our hands?
00:47:59This bill makes it easier for the president's actions to go unchecked.
00:48:02By blocking nationwide injunctions, people will be powerless to quickly stop illegal
00:48:06and unconstitutional actions.
00:48:08This bill is simply another loyalty bill for the president.
00:48:11Up there with naming airports after him or putting his face on Mount Rushmore, loyalty
00:48:15to the president should not supersede the rule of law or loyalty to uphold the Constitution.
00:48:20This bill doesn't just take power away from judges, it takes power away from the American
00:48:23people, so I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
00:48:26I yield back.
00:48:28Thank you, and we reserve.
00:48:29The gentleman from Maryland Reserves, the gentleman from California, is recognized.
00:48:33I'm going to yield myself as much time as I may consume.
00:48:40Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring down a little bit of the tone and remind everyone in this
00:48:46chamber, but speaking to you, Mr. Speaker, the chief executive, since it was George Washington,
00:48:56has been charged by Congress to be the first to interpret the faithful execution of the
00:49:02Constitution and the amazing amount of laws that have been passed in our nearly 250 years.
00:49:11During those decades, one after another, all the way back with Marbury versus Madison,
00:49:18there have been disagreements, and the court has interpreted.
00:49:23But those interpretations, including Brown versus Board of Education, historically became
00:49:29nationwide when the high court, by a majority, ruled one direction or the other.
00:49:38And that is the way our founding fathers intended it to be.
00:49:42The ranking member of the full committee is a scholar and a teacher, a professor of this,
00:49:48and knows full well that we created under the Constitution a Supreme Court.
00:49:54And then we gave to this branch, to Article I, to the Congress, the authority to create
00:50:01subordinated and specialized or limited courts.
00:50:06Those courts of any sort are under the Supreme Court because only the Supreme Court is to
00:50:15rule on the law of the land.
00:50:17Now, my colleagues have noted the last administration and the fact that parties, including more
00:50:25than a dozen attorneys general, from time to time came and asked for and may or may
00:50:31not have been granted nationwide protection.
00:50:35This bill, as amended in committee, thoughtfully amended, in fact, takes into consideration
00:50:42that there may be times in which multiple states are represented before one judge.
00:50:48And as long as that judge is the nexus of at least one, and in the case of the District
00:50:53of Columbia, perhaps speaks for all, he or she should rule on behalf of all the plaintiffs
00:51:00represented in front of them.
00:51:03And let it be clear, the work of the Supreme Court is not just to overturn one ruling by
00:51:12a judge.
00:51:14The court most often, in the 62 to 66 cases it takes per session, per year, rules primarily
00:51:24on when there is a difference between the ruling in one and the ruling in another.
00:51:30Rules very often because there needs to be a single voice for the law of the land.
00:51:35There doesn't always have to be.
00:51:38The fact is, if a plaintiff comes and says, I represent one of many unlawful aliens, criminals,
00:51:48terrorists, who have been deported under a law that has been on the books for more than
00:51:53225 years, the judge has a right to rule if that defendant has a legitimate nexus
00:52:00in their court, has a right to rule as to that plaintiff or any others that come before
00:52:05him that have nexus.
00:52:07But to rule that the president must turn an airplane around with dangerous terrorists
00:52:14on it, why?
00:52:17Why would you do that?
00:52:19The fact is, judges are shopped for.
00:52:23My colleagues on the other side of the aisle rightfully so said that venue shopping has
00:52:28become a problem.
00:52:31That's not limited to Republicans or Democrats.
00:52:34In fact, both sides do it.
00:52:36As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they do it in civil cases.
00:52:40They do it all over the place.
00:52:42Lawyers are very good at it.
00:52:44But as the chairman of the subcommittee on the courts and with the ranking member of
00:52:48the full committee here today, it's our obligation to fine-tune the law so that, in fact, these
00:52:56kinds of injustices don't happen.
00:52:59We're here today to fine-tune the law to protect the Constitution and the intent of Congress
00:53:07for more than 225 years, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
00:53:15Gentleman from California Reserves, a gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
00:53:19I yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Representative Belk.
00:53:24From Missouri is recognized.
00:53:25Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a member of Congress, but as the son of a police officer
00:53:31and as someone who spent nearly two decades working in the justice system as a public
00:53:36defender, defense attorney, judge, and as a prosecutor.
00:53:41I know what it means to uphold the law, and I know what it looks like when the rule of
00:53:46law is under attack.
00:53:48This bill is not about judicial efficiency or fairness.
00:53:52It's about power, raw political power.
00:53:56The people who once cheered nationwide injunctions when they served their agenda now want to
00:54:02eliminate them because judges had the audacity to hold this administration accountable.
00:54:08It is a direct assault on judicial independence, and many of my Republican colleagues know
00:54:13it, but too many who won't say it out loud for fear of political retribution or a primary
00:54:22financed by Elon Musk.
00:54:24This is not conservative, it's not constitutional, and history will remember.
00:54:29I urge my colleagues to vote no.
00:54:33I want to make an answer to my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, about the
00:54:41remarks he just made.
00:54:44He's correct that the president, of course, like members of Congress, must also interpret
00:54:49and enforce the Constitution.
00:54:52In fact, that's the core part of the president's job, to take care that the laws are faithfully
00:54:57executed, says Article 2.
00:54:59Not distorted or rewritten, but to take care the laws are faithfully executed.
00:55:03That doesn't negate the fact that under Marbury v. Madison, it is emphatically the province
00:55:08and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is in the event of an actual
00:55:13case or controversy.
00:55:15The gentleman invokes George Washington.
00:55:18There's a beautiful portrait of Washington, the Trumbull portrait that we have in the
00:55:24rotunda, and it's a picture of George Washington surrendering his commission as the general
00:55:30of the Continental Forces, which Napoleon said made him the greatest man ever, that
00:55:34he could have stayed on as a dictator forever, and he gave up his power.
00:55:38He could have been president forever, but he gave up his power.
00:55:40We compare that to Donald Trump, who's saying he's going to run for an unconstitutional
00:55:43and, yes, Mr. Issa, an illegal third term.
00:55:47That would be an illegal third term for him to run again to try to take office.
00:55:51That's why we have courts in order to cabin the potentially limitless ambitions of presidents.
00:56:00That's why we don't have kings.
00:56:01We have presidents here.
00:56:03Secondly, I want to say there seems to be a myth on the other side that if a president
00:56:09campaigns on something, then it's constitutional, and the courts can't strike it down.
00:56:13If the president campaigns on, and I'm going to run for a third term if I run again, then
00:56:17it's okay.
00:56:18Where does it say that in the Constitution?
00:56:21That can't be right.
00:56:22We are all bound by the Constitution, no matter what we say during the campaign.
00:56:26The person can run around saying, I'm going to be king, or President Trump said, I will
00:56:31be dictator on day one.
00:56:32No, you will not be dictator on day one under the Constitution of the United States.
00:56:39Why did the judge tell the administration to turn the planes around?
00:56:43Because if the two most beautiful words in the English language, due process, because
00:56:49what they can do to non-citizens, they can do to citizens, that they can sweep anybody
00:56:53off the street and say, we're going to send you to a torturer's prison in El Salvador
00:56:57without any kind of hearing at all.
00:56:59It can happen to citizens as well as non-citizens.
00:57:02We reserve.
00:57:03Mr. Speaker, can I inquire as to the time available to both sides?
00:57:10Okay, before I get to that, members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities
00:57:17toward the President.
00:57:25The gentleman from California has seven and a half minutes remaining.
00:57:28The gentleman from Maryland has two and a half minutes remaining.
00:57:33Mr. Speaker, I'll yield myself, such time as I may consume.
00:57:36The gentleman is recognized.
00:57:39Mr. Speaker, just yesterday, the court ruled against the district judge by a five to four
00:57:49ruling undoing this whole question of does the President have the right to deport aliens?
00:57:57Yes, they said that there was a possibility of bringing a case in Texas as to one or more
00:58:03of them.
00:58:04To be honest, we've said that for quite a while, that, in fact, there was a procedure
00:58:10and that, in fact, the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit assigned himself, from what indications
00:58:18there are, a case, assigned himself four cases, and made a decision that a chief judge should
00:58:24know better than.
00:58:27Now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the right way to deal with a judge that
00:58:31makes a bad ruling is, in fact, appeal it.
00:58:36But the right way to deal with judges who take cases, take another case, take a total
00:58:43of four cases so far, and seem to rule very predictably, even if inaccurately, against
00:58:48the Trump administration is, in fact, to rein in the excesses.
00:58:54We try to do this in a measured way.
00:58:56I might note for the speaker that just today, by a 7 to 2 overwhelming majority, the court
00:59:05ruled, to no surprise to this congressman, that the President has a right to dismiss
00:59:13probationary employees, even though an activist judge stayed that and said that he didn't
00:59:20have that right, that somehow everyone else can get rid of probationary judges or probationary
00:59:27employees, including the last administration that summarily dismissed immigration judges
00:59:34on the last days of the probationary period, and did so without seeing a nationwide injunction.
00:59:42So there were plenty of opportunities to disagree, but I would hope that my colleagues, once
00:59:48again, as the speaker has so well stated, will stop claiming that these are illegal
00:59:53actions when we simply agree or disagree with the actions of the President.
00:59:58And in many cases, the court finds the President is well within his rights in faithfully executing
01:00:05his obligations.
01:00:06And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
01:00:08The gentleman's time is reserved.
01:00:10The gentleman from Maryland.
01:00:11And I yield the gentleman from New York one minute and 45 seconds.
01:00:15The gentleman is recognized.
01:00:16Thank you to the ranking member.
01:00:18Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
01:00:19I rise today in opposition to this bill, which is simply an attempt by House Republicans
01:00:23to intimidate judges who issue rulings that they simply don't like.
01:00:29My colleagues concede that it is the Supreme Court which determines what the law is.
01:00:36Well, in today's modern age, how do you get to the Supreme Court?
01:00:40You go first to the district court, then through the appeals court, and then up to the Supreme
01:00:44Court.
01:00:45Now, there are many complaints that that takes too long.
01:00:48I agree.
01:00:49But we're citing rulings on the other side of the aisle of Supreme Court rulings on these
01:00:54very nationwide injunctions within a few weeks.
01:00:59And even former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican star witness at our committee hearing
01:01:04last week on this topic, conceded that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in some cases.
01:01:12And that's why this bill is not about the substance.
01:01:16It is clear that the House Republicans have completely abdicated their own constitutional
01:01:20duty to be a check and balance on the president.
01:01:24So the only remaining check that is left in our separation of powers is the courts.
01:01:29But it's not enough for my colleagues to hand over all of their own authority to the president.
01:01:35They want to hand over the judiciary branch's authority, too.
01:01:39A fundamental principle of our Constitution is that the courts decide what the law is,
01:01:46not Congress and not the president, even if he is elected, which I would note for our
01:01:53friends down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, is true for every single president.
01:02:00My colleagues complain about the high number of nationwide injunctions during the first
01:02:04three months of this presidency.
01:02:06Well, rather than blame the judges for that, I've got an idea.
01:02:11Stop breaking the law.
01:02:14This is a bad bill that gets us nowhere other than toward autocracy, and I yield back.
01:02:20We reserve.
01:02:22Gentleman from Maryland reserves.
01:02:24Gentleman from California is recognized.
01:02:25Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that the gentleman is prepared to close, as am I.
01:02:29Is the gentleman prepared to close?
01:02:32Yes, indeed.
01:02:35Gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
01:02:38Listening to the debate, it occurs to me that Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the
01:02:41Sundance Kid should have just denounced judicial activism and moved to change the federal rules
01:02:45of civil procedure.
01:02:47Always better to blame the judge than to take responsibility for your own unlawful actions.
01:02:52I'd like to close by quoting Thomas Jefferson, who said during the time of the Alien and
01:02:56Sedition Acts, a little patience and the reign of witches shall pass over.
01:03:01Their spells dissolve and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government
01:03:05to its true principles.
01:03:06In the meantime, we are suffering the horrors and malignities of this period, but if the
01:03:11game runs against us sometimes, as it will, we must have patience because it is a game
01:03:15where principles are at stake.
01:03:17I yield back.
01:03:19Gentleman yields back.
01:03:20Gentleman from California is recognized.
01:03:22Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
01:03:24As we close, since the ranking members so aptly named a couple of famous quotes and
01:03:34famous movies, I might call to attention the line, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
01:03:43The other side, just a few months ago, supported this legislation in a more radical form than,
01:03:50in fact, we bring today.
01:03:53Thanks to Congressman Schmidt and others on the committee, we have thoughtfully amended
01:03:58this to make it limited, for which the ranking member and others seem to claim that we were
01:04:03somehow being nefarious.
01:04:06No, we weren't.
01:04:08In the last cycle under President Biden, yes, half a dozen or so attorneys general came
01:04:17and disagreed with the attempt to forgive $188 billion in student loans.
01:04:25There was a temporary injunction on behalf of those multiple states, and lo and behold,
01:04:31the high court stayed it and ruled that, in fact, he didn't have the authority, saving
01:04:38us nearly $200 billion that was being given away by Joe Biden.
01:04:46Not in any way deterred by that, President Biden bragged that he circumvented it and
01:04:52did give away billions more, and that is still something being worked on by this body.
01:05:00Presidents push the limits of their authority.
01:05:04President Biden certainly did.
01:05:05President Obama famously said he didn't have the authority to do things and then did them
01:05:10later and dared the court to stop him.
01:05:15I think we have to come here and realize if we do our job, we are drawing the appropriate
01:05:21balance on one of the two branches that we do have an obligation to keep an eye on.
01:05:27We keep an eye on the executive branch, and the minority, being the branch not of the
01:05:33president, generally calls the strikes, the balls, and not the home runs.
01:05:40That's okay.
01:05:42They do it, and they've been doing it for 250 years, and I commend them, but we also
01:05:48have an obligation to come together, to communicate, to not have a failure to communicate, to realize
01:05:54that on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the best interest of the high court
01:06:00not being swamped with amazing amount of these, and not having future presidents find themselves
01:06:06deterred from executing what they believe is best in a timely fashion, that we come
01:06:12together and vote this moderate and, quite frankly, modest piece of amendment.
01:06:18It won't stop all national injunctions, but it will define more narrowly when they can
01:06:24be done.
01:06:26I would hope we would do that, and I'll close simply by saying presidents, Teddy Roosevelt
01:06:32sent the great white fleet out, not necessarily having the money to get them back.
01:06:39Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed the bounds of the Constitution for what he thought was
01:06:45right, including the incarceration of threats to our democracy under this very act, and
01:06:52the court affirmed that.
01:06:55Presidents have seen reasons to do it.
01:06:57This president has seen an onslaught, more than 10 million illegals, many of them actually
01:07:03hear from terrorist gangs, and he is trying to protect our nation.
01:07:08I would hope that we would, instead of talking about Elon Musk and others, that we'd come
01:07:14together and do something that we know if the next president is of the other party,
01:07:20my colleagues will be supporting something that looks amazingly like what we have in
01:07:24front of us today.
01:07:25So I'd ask all that are watching and listening, and the speaker, to take heed that this is
01:07:32a bill supported by the last administration, and should be supported by everyone in this
01:07:36body.
01:07:37And with that, I yield back and move the previous question.