Members of the legislative branch are taking the baton from President Trump in his fights with federal judges and running with it. In the next few days, the Republican-led House is preparing a high-profile hearing, potentially with judges themselves, as well as legislation that could limit jurists’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. 

Mr. Trump has been very vocal about his objections to district judges — most of them nominated by Democratic presidents — blocking key administration policies like his mass early retirement scheme, his mass deportation plans, and his mass cancellation of money being sent to federal contractors, some of whom had already completed work blessed by the government. 

“Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings,” Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social just last week. “STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!”

House Republicans are trying to take his grievances and turn them into congressional  action. Next week, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing about the use of nationwide injunctions by district judges. 

The most famous order that enraged Mr. Trump came from Judge James Boasberg, who demanded the Trump administration turn three planes around filled with alleged migrant criminals in order to return them to America as they were being deported to El Salvador. The White House has said that because the aircraft were already out of American airspace, they were not required to comply with the order. 

Congressman Darrell Issa has already introduced legislation to limit judges’ ability to issue those kinds of orders. The No Rogue Rulings Act would amend federal law to “limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief” to those who do not themselves bring lawsuits against the government. 

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States district court shall issue any order providing for injunctive relief, except in the case of such an order that is applicable only to limit the actions of a party to the case before such district court with respect to the party seeking injunctive relief from such district court,” the act states. The bill is due to receive a floor vote next week after it was passed out of the Judiciary Committee on March 5. 

Mr. Issa told reporters just off the House floor on Tuesday that he planned to meet with Speaker Johnson about his legislation, though he did not offer specifics. If the House is even able to pass the bill, it would almost certainly fail in the Senate, where 60 votes are required to break a filibuster. 

Mr. Johnson went a step further than Mr. Issa on Tuesday at a press conference. The speaker — while stating that his remarks were not an explicit threat to judges — highlighted Congress’s power to defund or abolish federal courts. 

“There’s a natural tension between the branches of the government,” Mr. Johnson told reporters Tuesday. “We do have authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things. Desperate times call for desperate measures.” Article III of the Constitution states that only Congress “may from time to time ordain and establish” federal courts, meaning that the legislative branch also has power to abolish them. 

Beyond the legislation, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jim Jordan, plans to hold a hearing next week to highlight Mr. Issa’s bill and the impact of these injunctions themselves. Mr. Jordan told reporters on Tuesday that he would soon release the list of witnesses that will appear before the committee. 

Mr. Johnson told members of the press corps that he may even be open to calling jurists themselves to testify and explain their rulings against the Trump administration. 

“I suspect that we may wind up questioning some of these judges themselves, to have them defend their actions,” Mr. Johnson said Monday. 

Several rank-and-file House members have already carved out their own lane in this fight with federal judges, with lawmakers introducing articles of impeachment against a number of jurists. Mr. Johnson told reporters on Monday that while “everything is on the table,” impeachment would be an “extraordinary measure.”

The articles of impeachment being levied against six members of the judiciary led Chief Justice Roberts to issue a rare public statement from his chambers, saying that impeaching judges is “not an appropriate response” to these rulings.