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

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.