[{"_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",6211550,"mediaKeyId","3694996-34a48165067559b870f8d2316e322158","parentId",3694996,"title","Witnesses debate dark‑money influence and funding disclosures for academic chairs at Senate hearing","audioSeconds",3643,"startMs",1540000,"endMs",5183000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3694996-34a48165067559b870f8d2316e322158&start=1540&end=5183","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3694996-34a48165067559b870f8d2316e322158/thumbnail_1540000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6211550/Witnesses-debate-darkmoney-influence-and-funding-disclosures-for-academic-chairs-at-Senate-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211550-b28cf1db5792837a537fb690b77362b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137032&Signature=V4CG646G2SxIhOw4L-DLOPH1kD3El84dUNVTkuVvu-2DKiOxNFhp1D4TUXmATSiEFewwKSGuf6gWbIzkJGp61UWvjjkBVZ5d5qIrJgBo2wVDY9CQ5R2rAXSlbJm90ENWSvXn44Gvuli~YcG~~i7S4ECFo87NV5DuDdillIvlxSWODnVCKOAE1LyGE1dw7jgZSlLJPXZjnyQB46r9BVN2iUg51Oe4ukUSRlxEs8qyFscuXJ9dG5evjjVdt4ah4ETatA~Vj~AnDShSRrzWvmR3pVbVc5YsaAcg9JkBywDsXQOxu7Y944yB7XSto-IhGP6-zESPxECLFohoK71R64Xofg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary","date","2025-06-03T00:00:00Z","article","Senators at a joint Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing questioned witnesses about the role of outside money and private influence in judicial nominations and about funding for academic positions.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who chaired earlier hearings on outside funding, said prior investigations had documented dark‑money influence on federal judicial nominations and asked witnesses about disclosed ties between private donors and endowed chairs. Whitehouse referenced reporting and written evidence he described as showing extensive outside financier influence in judicial selection.

The committee introduced three academic witnesses. Professor Josh Blackman acknowledged that an anonymizing donor vehicle, Donors Trust, provided funds to support his endowed chair at his law school and directed the committee to his law school for details about ultimate donors. Professor Joel Alasea acknowledged a contribution from Marble Freedom Trust directed to his chair; he said he believed that to be accurate. Professor Kate Shaw told the committee she did not personally hold an endowed chair and declined to answer questions about her employer’s external donations.

Senators pressed the panel on whether private funding for academic chairs and organizations can create biases in scholarship or testimony; witnesses said disclosure is relevant but some declined to provide details they said were outside the scope of the hearing or for which they deferred to their institutions.

The session included broader testimony and questioning about the role that Leonard Leo and conservative donor networks have played in judicial selection. Senator Whitehouse cited earlier hearings and reporting alleging centralized influence by private donors on judicial nominations; other senators cited public admissions and reporting. Witnesses stressed that questions about judicial selection and outside influence are not settled and are appropriate topics for further investigation and oversight.

The hearing produced no determinations about donor influence or formal findings about the funding sources; senators asked for written follow‑up and disclosures where appropriate.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","The Supposedly “Least Dangerous Branch”: District Judges v. Trump ","oneSentenceSummary","Senators pressed witnesses about outside funding and political influence in federal judicial nominations; academics acknowledged outside donations to endowed chairs and institutions but declined to detail donors in committee testimony.","taxTitle","Judiciary: Senate Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation, Legislative, Federal","taxId",1997,"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},6211555,"Senators, witnesses warn of threats to judges as rhetoric escalates; calls for stronger judicial security",1180,1762000,2942000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3694996-34a48165067559b870f8d2316e322158&start=1762&end=2942","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3694996-34a48165067559b870f8d2316e322158/thumbnail_1762000.jpg","/articles/6211555/Senators-witnesses-warn-of-threats-to-judges-as-rhetoric-escalates-calls-for-stronger-judicial-security","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211555-fd8572678f4a83fe73ababd199b8931d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137032&Signature=PYfkqo5h8JhJKWx4juW~qi5AWqlBPH4YDAeOiwpqUZd97qBppbBqAzwGzb8P3Bn4l2CHiXzf6mgn8IRg4EAAE3vTrkwmXVbIafpQ67XA2Gw5T7vqyAx5fI-qH3346i8pN36HEEbHm4GYUddAsgwO7JW0LiIpQB26PCCaaZUBIZJSiYyoe0PTdtrlmOfsWlubDxXWY9ivzSVcpzGbKWQ5aHdI0Heog37iqEXCcvaO81SKsOuJS5z6O8TwHniRtjhw2vlmI-C83J7gYK0Gd56WFeJIhUr89Q-as30GrQPdo8YgLeSqNc0kRMdWb6bWls1dzbU-su9T8LpIqk01inPjUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lawmakers and witnesses at a joint Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing described a recent rise in threats and harassment directed at federal judges and their families and urged stronger protections and investigations.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, ranking member on the subcommittee, told the panel that judges who ruled against the administration and their families had been subject to harassment and credible threats. “In a 6 week period from March through April, 162 judges received threats to themselves or family members,” Whitehouse said, and he described a campaign of pizzas sent to judges’ homes, some using the name of a judge’s murdered son as an implicit intimidation tactic.

Senator Dick Durbin and other senators described letters they had sent to the attorney general and the FBI requesting investigations into orchestrated harassment campaigns. Durbin said he had asked for information on steps taken to protect judges and their families and that he had not received a response from the Department of Justice by the time he spoke.

Witnesses agreed that threats to judicial safety have risen and urged federal law enforcement to investigate possible coordination. Professor Kate Shaw recommended stronger judicial security measures and noted a pending proposal to transfer responsibility for the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judiciary to reduce political influence over judicial protection.

Several senators raised 18 U.S.C. § 1507 — the federal statute that criminalizes demonstrations near a judge’s residence intended to influence or intimidate — and discussed whether increasing penalties or enforcing the statute more vigorously would help deter threats. Witnesses generally supported vigorous enforcement and urged careful calibration of any legislative expansions to avoid unintended First Amendment conflicts.

Committee members from both parties said they support protecting judges’ safety. Senators also cautioned that congressional rhetoric should not further inflame threats; some Republican senators pointed to past protests at justices’ homes during prior years as bipartisan examples of problematic conduct.

The hearing produced no direct enforcement action; senators said they would continue oversight and follow up with written questions and requests to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Marshals Service.","The hearing highlighted a spike in threats to federal judges and their families, discussed potential investigations, and considered legislative and administrative steps to strengthen judicial security and marshal independence.",{"_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},6211559,"Senate hearing spotlights rise of nationwide injunctions and bipartisan reform proposals",3788,1135000,4923000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3694996-34a48165067559b870f8d2316e322158&start=1135&end=4923","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3694996-34a48165067559b870f8d2316e322158/thumbnail_1135000.jpg","/articles/6211559/Senate-hearing-spotlights-rise-of-nationwide-injunctions-and-bipartisan-reform-proposals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6211559-2cc1bbb5880a3373eccfb0bf3c0ec0be/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137032&Signature=YVWKXQMSJO-Gm5OEHZaTtfU-BQbMbrrVCclA0GQ-LEP-fKI8R9FbY9TEJeiTWCVlbl1B73XHirXJ49hAsArTxhKqyxIranQYRMKsUq3N-deUaLjma~S2FMUQtQETJCFcq8qtycVI4JcZhtYwvVi1Bd1G01xpgkrOJ1YSiGRJvgaRXNnb3g3mdU3Cra~gA91xA-b9wQbK0GFyLQT--AroLRqzfXk1864F6wGLRg~jgECZLLdUeaDdDFnPz62WHpRBGU8zBrgAPeEoJjZnGw4vuKLR-Ln6HT0b3jC~Zib3M8HiXbZ4TSxcaaSx~koPM1XnedbMyJCSOqiBGPu1q9zoNA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Subcommittee on Federal Courts heard sharply differing views on nationwide (also called universal) injunctions and proposals to limit their reach.

Senator Ted Cruz, chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, told the panel that single district judges have issued nationwide injunctions that effectively override the president’s policies, and urged Congress to act to rein in what he called “judicial tyranny.” “One unelected district judge sitting in a courtroom … can now issue a nationwide injunction that ties the hands of the president of the United States for all 330,000,000 Americans,” Cruz said.

Proposals discussed at the hearing ranged from statutory changes to procedural fixes. Witnesses and senators described several near-term options: requiring multi-judge panels to decide preliminary nationwide relief, automatically staying a district court’s nationwide order for a brief period to allow expedited appellate review, consolidating venue for challenges to federal policies, and narrowing the circumstances in which a single judge may bind nonparties.

The hearing featured three academic witnesses: Josh Blackman, Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at South Texas College of Law; Kate Shaw, professor at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School; and Professor Joel Alasea, Director of the Law School Center for the Constitution (as introduced to the committee). Blackman pressed structural solutions: limit temporary restraining orders to named parties and seven days, require a three-judge panel (two circuit judges and one district judge) for preliminary nationwide relief against federal and state governments, and create an automatic-stay and expedited appellate path for emergency appeals. Blackman said those changes would reduce “forum-shopping” and prevent a single judge from acting as a de facto national policymaker.

Shaw agreed that increased executive action helps explain the surge in litigation but cautioned against blunt statutory limits. She told senators that many recent judicial losses for the executive branch reflect cross‑ideological agreement that specific actions were unlawful, and she emphasized Congress’s role in resolving statutory gaps or granting authorities the administration seeks. Shaw also recommended attention to judicial security and operational reforms — for example, reducing single‑judge divisions that invite forum shopping.

Professor Alasea focused on historical practice and the party‑centered meaning of Article III relief, arguing that equitable remedies traditionally redressed only plaintiffs’ injuries and that routine nationwide injunctions are a modern development. He described the use of universal injunctions as a twentieth‑ and twenty‑first‑century phenomenon that has accelerated in recent years.

Senators from both parties pressed witnesses on tradeoffs. Several Republican senators said the recent pace of nationwide injunctions — which some speakers described as more than 40 in the first four months of the current administration, with a disproportionate share coming from a handful of districts — threatens the separation of powers. Democratic senators stressed that the surge in litigation follows an unusually large volume of novel executive action and said that where courts have blocked executive measures they often did so because those measures appear to violate statutes or the Constitution.

Several senators and witnesses proposed specific legislative or administrative changes: require class certification or other Rule 23 procedures when broad relief is sought; authorize three‑judge initial panels for injunctions affecting nationwide policy; create a short automatic stay when a district court issues nationwide relief; and have clearer venue rules to reduce forum shopping. Some witnesses suggested Supreme Court clarification or a Judicial Conference rule change as alternatives to new statutes.

The hearing did not produce legislative action; members agreed to pursue further work. Senators submitted written questions and requested responses from witnesses. The committee recorded extensive debate over legal doctrine, practical consequences for governance, and the balance between judicial review and democratic accountability.","A Senate Judiciary joint subcommittee hearing examined the sharp increase in nationwide injunctions, the legal and institutional risks they pose, and several reform proposals including three-judge panels, automatic stays and limits on forum shopping.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Witnesses debate dark‑money influence and funding disclosures for academic chairs at Senate hearing

Senators, witnesses warn of threats to judges as rhetoric escalates; calls for stronger judicial security

Senate hearing spotlights rise of nationwide injunctions and bipartisan reform proposals