In recent weeks there has been some informal talk on the floor of the U.S. Congress—in particular among Republican leadership—about tightening the federal judiciary’s belt. Article III of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the discretion to establish such lower federal courts. This is not unprecedented, having been used to eliminate the commerce court in 1913. To their credit, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan has signaled interest in pursuing legislative remedies, possibly including limiting future funding, that would keep them at bay.
For Mike Johnson, a former constitutional attorney and current Assistant Counsel to the U.S. He’s gone so far as to dub them a “dramatic improvement.” He argues that certain injunctions issued by district court judges violate the separation of powers and suggests that Congress has the authority to act.
"We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court." – Mike Johnson
Yet now Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley is warning that these kinds of judicial reforms would worsen the backlog in our courts. Rather than passing progressive legislation, Hawley calls for putting more right-wing justices on the court.
"My view is, I’d like to get more Republican judges on the bench." – Josh Hawley
California Republican Representative Darrell Issa is taking the lead on one such bill. We know the full House will vote on it next week. The bill would restrict district court judges from handing down nationwide injunctions. Curiously, over a dozen House Republicans support this action and are currently petitioning for this kind of treatment to judges such as Boasberg who make similar decisions.
Former President Donald Trump has even called for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment. On the lead plaintiff’s public nuisance complaint, he is displeased with the judge’s rulings. Johnson partially walked back those comments. He meant to shine a light on Congress’s deep constitutional authority rather than make an overt threat.