Johnson Floats Gutting Federal Courts
Unofficial portrait of Mike Johnson, 56th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, 2023. Photo courtesy of Office of Speaker Mike Johnson. Public domain.
In a press conference that turned heads across Washington and America, House Speaker Mike Johnson said something few expected to hear aloud: Congress can eliminate federal courts — and might consider it.
The Louisiana Republican's comments, delivered in response to a reporter's question, weren't a formal proposal. But they weren't offhand either. They were delivered with a purpose — and in a tone that suggested Johnson was serious about changing how the judiciary operates, especially regarding decisions that have blocked Trump administration policies.
Why This Matters
At the core of the controversy is a broader push by House Republicans to limit what they call, in the words of Rep. Tim Walberg, (R-Michigan), "overstepping their boundaries," as stated in NBC News.
Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking initiatives from President Donald Trump's second administration — including attempts to deport migrants under the Alien Enemies Act and major workforce cuts across federal agencies. That resistance from the bench has sparked a wave of Republican proposals, ranging from impeachment resolutions to judicial funding cuts, according to Reuters.
In a statement reported by NBC News, Speaker Johnson said, "We do have the 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. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."
Can Congress Really Eliminate a Federal Court?
Yes — but it's not easy. As NBC News reported, Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "ordain and establish" the lower federal courts. Historically, that's meant creating — and sometimes eliminating — courts as needed.
Congress has done it before. In 1913, it dissolved the Commerce Court. In 1982, it reorganized the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, creating new courts in their place.
However, using that power in response to controversial rulings — particularly as a political maneuver — would be a dramatic escalation. It would also face significant logistical and political hurdles.
Is This Just a Trial Balloon?
Johnson's comments appear to be more of a signal than a blueprint for now. He later clarified that he wasn't threatening immediate action but rather highlighting the "broad authority" Congress has over the structure and funding of the judiciary, as reported by NBC News.
That said, the House Judiciary Committee is making moves. Chairman Jim Jordan is planning a hearing next week focused on what Republicans call "abuses" by district court judges, as reported by Bloomberg Law. California Rep. Darrell Issa introduced a bill — The No Rogue Rulings Act — that would limit the ability of trial court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, a change Johnson called a "dramatic improvement" to the system. The bill is expected to come to a vote next week, according to The Hill.
Are All Republicans on Board?
Not exactly. While some conservative hardliners call for aggressive action, including impeachment of judges like U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, others are more cautious.
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a moderate Republican who had previously expressed opposition to impeaching judges for political reasons, was ambivalent about limiting injunctions. "I don't know yet. I heard a little bit about it today," he said about Issa's bill to Bloomberg Law, "I'm keeping my powder dry."
Even a few GOP defections would be enough to sink the bill, as the Republicans have a very narrow majority in the House.
In the Senate, the road gets even steeper. Democrats would almost certainly block any effort to defund or eliminate courts via the filibuster — and even some Republicans are skeptical. While backing restrictions on nationwide injunctions, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said eliminating courts would create "massive, massive backlogs." According to NBC News, Hawley added, "My view is, I'd like to get more Republican judges on the bench. If we take away seats, we can't do that."
Josh Hawley speaking to local leaders from St. Joseph, Missouri and members of the 139th Airlift Wing, 2019. Photo by Master Sgt. Michael Crane. Public domain.
What Will Happen Next?
Johnson's remarks reflect deep frustration inside the Republican Party about what they see as judicial interference with an elected administration's agenda. But they also reflect political strategy: by floating extreme possibilities like eliminating courts, GOP leaders may be trying to shift the conversation and make comparatively moderate reforms, like limiting injunctions, seem more palatable.
Whether it's a real threat or a rhetorical device, one thing is clear: the battle between Congress and the judiciary isn't going away anytime soon.
References: Speaker Mike Johnson floats eliminating federal courts as GOP ramps up attacks on judges | Johnson stresses Congress’s power over courts: 'Desperate times call for desperate measures' | Republicans eye actions against the courts and judges as Trump rails against rulings | House Speaker Floats Judiciary Funding Cuts in Courts Battle (2) | US House Speaker Johnson says Congress can 'eliminate' district courts
