WASHINGTON — In a bold move amid growing pressure from the Republican right, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., recently suggested that Congress could consider eliminating certain federal courts. This remark highlights the ongoing tension between the Republican Party and the federal judiciary, particularly as various courts have blocked key initiatives from the Trump administration. The conversation surrounding the judiciary has intensified, especially as Trump and his conservative allies have called for the impeachment of specific federal judges, including U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, known for halting Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Johnson emphasized that Congress possesses significant authority over the federal courts, stating, “We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things.” He further clarified that his comments aimed to highlight Congress's “broad authority” regarding the “creation, maintenance, and governance” of the courts, as outlined in Article III of the Constitution.
Article III established the Supreme Court but also granted Congress the power to “ordain and establish” lower federal courts. Historically, Congress has exercised this power; for instance, in 1913, it abolished the Commerce Court, redistributing its judges to the federal appeals court. Additionally, in 1982, Congress eliminated the Article III Court of Claims and the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, creating the Article I Court of Federal Claims and the Article III U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is set to hold a hearing focused on Judge Boasberg and other district judges next week. He mentioned engaging with GOP appropriators about potential “legislative remedies” to address judicial rulings that conflict with Republican priorities. Jordan stated, “We got money, spending, the appropriations process to help try to address some of this,” although he did not elaborate further on specific strategies.
Any attempts to defund federal courts will likely become a contentious issue in bipartisan funding negotiations for the upcoming fiscal year. Republicans face significant challenges in actualizing these threats. Firstly, they must persuade influential senior appropriators to remove funding for specific courts in their funding bill, particularly the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill which finances the lower courts. Notably, this appropriations subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Dave Joyce, R-Ohio, a moderate member of the House GOP.
Moreover, House Republicans would require near-unanimous agreement to pass a funding bill that would defund certain courts, a challenging endeavor given their slim majority. The Senate is also expected to reject any funding proposal that seeks to cut court funding. Senate Republicans would need at least seven Democrats to join them in overcoming a filibuster, and some Republican senators might oppose such measures. Senator Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has voiced concerns, stating that eliminating a district court would lead to significant backlogs, advocating instead for the appointment of more Republican judges.
As House and Senate appropriators aim to finalize 12 funding bills before the next government shutdown deadline on September 30, Johnson has indicated a desire for a balanced approach to counteract federal rulings against Trump. In addition to the upcoming House Judiciary Committee hearing, Johnson announced plans for a vote next week on a bill proposed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., aimed at preventing district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., a close ally of Johnson, expressed his support for Issa's bill, stating, “The judges, especially we’re talking about district court judges, are overstepping their boundaries.” Walberg further indicated openness to additional measures, reinforcing the growing sentiment within the GOP to rein in judicial power while navigating the complex legislative landscape ahead.
