Members debate impeachment threats, nationwide injunctions and judicial independence at oversight hearing

Members of the House Judiciary subcommittee used a hearing on the judiciary's budget to press broader concerns about judicial independence, impeachment threats and the use of nationwide injunctions.

"Impeachment is a very serious process," Representative Zoe Lofgren said during questioning, urging that impeachment not be used as a political weapon against judges who issue rulings some members dislike. "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate process exists for that purpose."

Ranking Member Jamie Raskin and other Democrats warned that public attacks on judges and calls for impeachment have contributed to a rise in threats and risk to judicial safety. "Threats to federal judges skyrocketed over the last 6 months," Raskin said, citing U.S. Marshals Service figures shared in committee discussion.

Several Republican members framed nationwide injunctions and certain district‑court rulings as examples of judicial overreach and said reforms or clearer limits could be needed. Witnesses from the Judicial Conference said the conference does not have an official policy on nationwide injunctions and noted the issue is before the Supreme Court.

Judge Amy St. Eve said she had not prepared to comment on the merits of nationwide injunctions and that judicial conference committees appearing before the panel had not adopted a position. Judge Michael Scudder said legal arguments on the subject are "before the Supreme Court," and the conference would expect guidance from that court.

Members also discussed whether congressional leverage over funding could be used to influence judicial behavior. Several witnesses and members rejected using appropriations to coerce decisions. Representative Raskin warned that withholding resources for judicial security would threaten the independence necessary for judges to rule without fear.

Witnesses repeatedly emphasized the distinction between criticism of rulings and attacks that create safety risks for judges and their families. "We must give judicial branch institutions all the security funding they need wholly without regard to which judges are being protected, in which cases they may be handling," Ranking Member Johnson said in an opening statement that the witnesses echoed.

The committee did not take formal action on impeachment or rules governing injunctions; the hearing record closed with members requesting additional information from the witnesses.