House Judiciary Subcommittee Hears Competing Views on Bill Letting Federal Officials Move State Cases to Federal Court

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government held a hearing on legislative proposals intended to curb so-called "lawfare" — the use of civil or criminal proceedings to harass political opponents — focusing on a bill described by proponents as the "Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act of 2025." Subcommittee members and expert witnesses debated whether Congress should expand the federal-officer removal statute to allow current and former federal officials, including presidents and vice presidents, to move state cases to federal court and whether to codify a form of immunity for official acts.

Proponents said the bill would protect federal officials from politically motivated prosecutions. "I have three suggestions for your consideration to curb state lawfare targeting federal officials," said witness George Terwilliger, a former U.S. attorney and deputy attorney general, urging Congress to amend the removal statute to expressly cover former officials, broaden federal-question jurisdiction for removal, and codify a supremacy-clause immunity. Daniel Epstein of the America First Legal Foundation described what he called coordinated actions by state prosecutors and federal actors against former President Donald Trump and said congressional action was needed to preserve federal officials' ability to obtain a neutral forum.

Opponents and skeptical witnesses questioned both the necessity and the constitutionality of the proposed changes. Professor Elizabeth Beske of American University Washington College of Law cautioned that the Supreme Court's Mesa v. California line of decisions requires a "colorable federal defense" for removal and that a statute cannot override Article III jurisdictional constraints. "You can add the proposed language to the statute, but it may not have the immediate, broad, and sweeping effect you intend," she said. Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon and Rep. Jamie Raskin warned the bill could allow federal officers to avoid state accountability for private conduct and would threaten the balance between state and federal courts.

Witnesses with different backgrounds offered narrower and overlapping proposals. Professor Elizabeth Price Foley and other proponents urged Congress to expand the removal statute to cover former officials and to make it easier to resolve federal defenses in federal court. They argued that liberal removal rules would reduce venue-based bias and prevent single-state prosecutors from effectively immunizing or disqualifying federal officials. Beske and other critics said any expansion must respect the Supreme Court's reading of Article III and the requirement that removed cases present a genuine federal question.

Committee members debated practical and constitutional points throughout the hearing. Supporters cited the Fulton County, Georgia, and Manhattan prosecutions as motivating examples; witnesses discussed McCulloch v. Maryland as background for supremacy-clause arguments and Mesa v. California as the controlling precedent on removal. Opponents warned the bill's language — including provisions that would permit removal where a state court's consideration "may hinder, burden, or delay" federal duties and a clause barring courts from defining the scope of presidential duties — could read the color-of-office limitation out of the statute, effectively expanding federal jurisdiction into matters traditionally handled by states.

The subcommittee did not vote on the measure at the hearing; members said a markup was scheduled following the hearing. The hearing record will include written testimony and submitted materials from the witnesses, and members on both sides signaled they will press their constitutional and practical positions during the committee's markup.

The hearing highlighted the central tension for lawmakers: whether to change removal rules to guard federal officials from locally driven prosecutions that proponents call partisan "lawfare," or to preserve state authority and Article III limits to prevent broad federal encroachment and potential immunity for private wrongdoing by officials.