[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6296070,"mediaKeyId","2518087-f6caedfbdc50e6ccc8d0ef5cda64a430","parentId",2518087,"title","House Judiciary markup debates bill to let presidents and some officers move state cases to federal court","audioSeconds",505,"startMs",629000,"endMs",1134000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2518087-f6caedfbdc50e6ccc8d0ef5cda64a430&start=629&end=1134","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2518087-f6caedfbdc50e6ccc8d0ef5cda64a430/thumbnail_629000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6296070/House-Judiciary-markup-debates-bill-to-let-presidents-and-some-officers-move-state-cases-to-federal-court","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296070-0a08b612e40c41cf58c00a22c9da8712/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175475&Signature=DtVIT-jwpqkzcFUOQ2B1wYqLVmmMYr8WFOyoKVJXb~ifMb8K3s3gHf80IkOu6wvDb92PKiqyr1hkIZ1UKQ1nwOaOtYKyapRbfZnk5MqFs7CPPLYfUGhwXmzu6sqjGf8-qM60Q9IP4bipVxKnsck9jI2j6pMl2fCU2iv~k-dHasbY4-BBR1Ja0D3NXGYR0-9fVeTqIf6kVxUbXccHMbW~OlAfHoBhrxysLQVdHItlDnAUX8oApVLv9gZNdQZS7CVfpKX-uK4l0bscJ6aM8POQvVKvuX28zc4fnNvt1vN7Z96tz~i~1QUkmrW9tNbG0cUUGBY1WNA5np1CCyhnj7OFhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary","date","2025-03-06T13:04:14.157Z","article","Representative Tom Fry, sponsor of HR 1789, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill would give current and former presidents, vice presidents and other U.S. officers an option to move state criminal or civil prosecutions that \"relate to any act while in office\" into federal court and would codify certain immunity principles the sponsor said the Supreme Court has recognized. \"The federal interests implicated by civil actions or criminal prosecutions brought against current or former presidents and vice presidents are pretty overwhelming,\" Fry said during the committee markup, adding that federal judges have life tenure and broader jury pools that can mitigate local political bias.

Opponents — led by the committee's Democratic members — said the bill would effectively shield presidents and other officials from prosecution for state crimes. \"This bill is an autocratic Christmas tree designed to ensure that nobody in Trump's orbit ... is held accountable in state court,\" said Representative Jerrold Nadler, the committee's ranking member, arguing the measure would erode states' authority to prosecute state-law offenses and could be used to dismiss cases. Nadler and other Democrats repeatedly pointed to the bill's dismissal standard, which they said creates a near-certain pathway to dismissal once a case is removed.

Committee debate focused on the scope of who could remove cases, how courts would decide whether an act was \"within the scope\" of official duties, and whether the bill would overrule or exceed current Supreme Court doctrine. Supporters said the bill merely extends long-standing removal protections for certain federal actors (for example, under existing statutes for judges and other officers) and insisted the statute preserves judicial review. \"This is just a removal mechanism. This isn't a removal and dismissal mechanism,\" a proponent said in response to questions, adding the bill \"codifies what the court has already said.\" Critics rebutted that the text goes further than precedent, would apply to private acts committed by officials while in office, and risks creating a de facto federal safe harbor for serious state crimes.

Members offered and debated several amendments. Representative Fry offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute described as not intended to change substance but to update the title; other members sought changes to clarify whether the statute would allow removal for \"any act\" while in office or only for official acts. Representative Jamie Raskin proposed amendments aimed at exempting particular offenses or clarifying judicial authority; those amendments were debated and some were defeated on recorded votes.

Throughout the markup members from both parties pressed for drafting changes addressing the bill's application to former officials, the standard for dismissal in federal court after removal, and whether state courts would be effectively preempted. Several members also raised hypotheticals — including violent crimes and classified-information cases — to test the bill's limits and whether courts, including the Supreme Court, would retain the authority to determine the scope of official duties.

The transcript of the markup records multiple roll-call and recorded votes on amendments; the committee debated the measure at length but the transcript does not record a final committee disposition of HR 1789 in the included excerpt. The discussion reflected deep partisan division: sponsors argued the bill protects federal functions from local political interference, while opponents said it would hollow out state criminal jurisdiction and exceed constitutional separation-of-powers norms.

Ending: The committee moved on after extensive debate and multiple amendment votes; the transcript excerpt ends before or without a clear, final committee vote on HR 1789 recorded in this excerpt. Members on both sides said they would continue to press for technical changes and clarifying language in subsequent drafting and negotiation.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Markup: H.R. 1789, the Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act;","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Tom Fry, sponsor of HR 1789, told the House Judiciary Committee the bill would let presidents, vice presidents and other federal officials move qualifying state prosecutions to federal court and would codify immunity for certain official acts.","taxTitle","Judiciary: House Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1830,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6296064,"Committee advances Judges Act to add 66 district judgeships; bipartisan authors urge quick action",3556,6404000,9960000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2518087-f6caedfbdc50e6ccc8d0ef5cda64a430&start=6404&end=9960","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2518087-f6caedfbdc50e6ccc8d0ef5cda64a430/thumbnail_6404000.jpg","/articles/6296064/Committee-advances-Judges-Act-to-add-66-district-judgeships-bipartisan-authors-urge-quick-action","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296064-4019ab0755ac0dcea095e5c6acf5f3d9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175475&Signature=Jx4qMVxRBl-gKlKr~DzcGi4Npp8u0vPtnQ3qNnIS5t-e0kJuAHRT2F7qS1gj7oP7UPaX5qxIdfR2jEFCUv2YhCnHN5~tZYZA8rTb88Q0ZkV381TdBXpn5noRjp7QwGO8nOiHLXN3ntpFxWLz0htBhfyVgCzP5YqeO9PpWWAhMD5BK56mZys80Tc3-sq9rxgo1ljtRn-ngewUrGTJQ5V35PWkRRn1Py0Nvbmoxv9gK0esJywgMA0LyZe83bJFRyJgp91fw1C4x608UsYv19MNbFB4ZRndZcS-Y3k~ydA8ZOu-6rHW0gEmGKwPBFTb7G4bNflb2ImM0Tb5ij9z3iO82w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Darrell Issa, who introduced the Judges Act of 2025, told the Judiciary Committee the bill would implement the Judicial Conference's recommendations by creating 66 new U.S. district judgeships in overburdened districts and authorize additional courthouse locations in large jurisdictions. \"The Judges Act of 2025 enacts the recommendations of the Judicial Conference, creating 66 new district court judges in our most overburdened districts,\" Issa said during his opening remarks, urging members to consider the bill on its institutional merits rather than partisan grounds.

Issa and other supporters said the proposal staggers appointments across multiple presidential terms and congresses to avoid immediate partisan advantage. The measure would require the Judicial Conference to publish the methodology behind its judgeship recommendations and direct the Government Accountability Office to evaluate appellate and district court efficiency and related detention needs. \"With a discretionary cost of less than 5% of the federal judiciary annual budget, this legislation is prudent and essential,\" Issa said.

Democrats on the committee said they supported adding judgeships but complained the House GOP leadership in the prior Congress delayed a bipartisan deal that would have spread appointments over multiple administrations starting with the next unknown president. Ranking Member Hank Johnson urged the committee to restore the prior bipartisan timetable; he and other Democrats pressed for amendments that would reinstate the earlier bipartisan distribution of appointments so no party had a timing advantage.

Committee members debated amendments addressing timing, geographic distribution of seats, and procedural protections such as the blue-slip tradition for district-court nominees. Members from districts with acute backlogs described the human and economic costs of delays and urged swift confirmation of additional judges. Representative Maxwell Nels (remarks summarized) and others described their districts' heavy civil and criminal dockets and the need for more courtroom locations.

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute to update the bill's title and made other technical changes. The markup concluded with a recorded vote to report the bill favorably to the House; the clerk recorded the final tally in the transcript as 14 ayes and 11 noes and the chair ordered the bill reported to the House.

Ending: Committee members said they would continue to refine placement and timing details as the bill moves to the House floor and to coordinate with Senate counterparts on a bipartisan path to enactment.

","A bipartisan bill to create 66 new U.S. district judgeships and authorize courthouse improvements cleared the House Judiciary Committee markup on a party-line, recorded vote after members debated timing and distribution of seats.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6296060,"Committee approves 'No Rogue Rulings' bill to limit nationwide injunctions from single judges",1569,8551000,10120000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2518087-f6caedfbdc50e6ccc8d0ef5cda64a430&start=8551&end=10120","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2518087-f6caedfbdc50e6ccc8d0ef5cda64a430/thumbnail_8551000.jpg","/articles/6296060/Committee-approves-No-Rogue-Rulings-bill-to-limit-nationwide-injunctions-from-single-judges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6296060-3b9f97912efaa8e2dc91f8717af6e3f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175475&Signature=PTjQ7w~ngNc4Wm3ght93Vn2Gfp475oDjbrNc~HqrGVAH3oDn3G3ziWNAU7H-64WxMl13BNtZ7~MomaoAe5HzYp0spBmD1j9O0LpgHZHTHdScFvpsfOXNqS3d-vzUXLn87o0Y4EY8439lAH0MSNf2jQ1d6NHrsOzqJ9dnM6oMrkx6jmHDH2vDdR9tiPJX4JWtKr0YA6IW3NF2nqbOPsRYqyngX17wO0Yf5SRK0yK4EVRx~5SbjzcxoAZG5dEsdn7MXACtZhLGEUYw9pbEVYctc21vpplWY0d-E8YpzXzMHP8EAKJLYlJ8F0ipI7ZygoUdviIjHOePyvGA88hzqC7ybg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Darrell Issa described HR 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act, as a response to what he called broad nationwide injunctions issued by individual district judges that block executive actions across the country. \"These nationwide injunctions have been exceptionally broad in scope and apply not only to the parties that sought the injunction in the case, but also to non parties,\" Issa said during the committee markup, arguing the bill would restore judicial restraint by limiting injunctive relief to parties before the court unless multiple parties and circuits are involved.

Opponents, led by committee Democrats, said nationwide relief remains necessary when a government action has broad nationwide effects or when individual plaintiffs cannot feasibly bring separate suits in every affected forum. Representative Jamie Raskin argued that nationwide injunctions are an essential tool for preventing irreparable harm in cases where implementation would immediately affect large numbers of people, and said the existing preliminary-injunction framework is the proper mechanism to evaluate those claims.

Committee debate included proposals to preserve an exception when multiple states or stakeholders demonstrate a national interest. Representative Brett Schmidt (and other members) offered an amendment to create a limited pathway for multistate challenges to be heard by a three-judge panel with expedited direct appeal to the Supreme Court; that amendment was adopted by the committee as a compromise to retain a pathway for broad injunctive relief when several states are plaintiffs and the matter spans circuits.

The committee adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute and ordered HR 1526 favorably reported to the House by roll-call vote; the transcript records a committee tally of 14 ayes and 9 noes and the chair ordered the bill reported. Democrats said they would oppose the underlying bill on the floor because it narrows judges' traditional equitable powers and could hamper rapid court responses to executive actions that affect widespread groups.

Ending: Committee recorded its approval and ordered HR 1526 to be reported favorably; supporters said the three-judge panel exception and expedited review preserve a path for multistate or multi-circuit challenges, while opponents said the bill would weaken judicial checks on executive overreach.

","The House Judiciary Committee advanced HR 1526, which would generally limit nationwide injunctions to the parties in a case and narrow the ability of a single district judge to enjoin nationwide executive action; supporters said it curbs judicial overreach, while opponents said it would","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Judiciary markup debates bill to let presidents and some officers move state cases to federal court

Committee advances Judges Act to add 66 district judgeships; bipartisan authors urge quick action

Committee approves 'No Rogue Rulings' bill to limit nationwide injunctions from single judges