NEWT GINGRICH: The only solution to the crisis of radical district judges

Fox News

08-05-2025

The fight over whether unelected federal district court judges should be able to unilaterally halt an elected president of the United States' agenda has reached a critical point.
For the last three months, the American people's effort to profoundly change the Washington establishment has been blocked by radical district judges, who have wildly exceeded their authority. In the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second administration, lower court judges have issued 37 nationwide injunctions against various administration actions. That is more than one every three days.
This is not an issue of judges against President Trump. It is an issue of judges against the American people.
In the 2024 election, the American people elected a Republican House, Senate, and President. President Trump carried all seven swing states. He received 77.3 million votes – 2.3 million more than Vice President Kamala Harris.
We must protect the American people's right to elect those who manage the federal government.
There are 677 district judges on the federal bench. If any of them can issue nationwide injunctions to override the decisions of the elected president, we are in a real crisis. Remember, these judges have never been elected by the American people. They face no consequence if their rulings result in ruined lives or wasted taxpayer dollars.
Not all of them are overreaching, but some certainly are. And some of the nationwide injunctions which have been passed verge on insanity.
One injunction asserted that the executive cannot pause or terminate fugitive admissions into the United States and had to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees – never mind the humanitarian or financial cost of the decision.
Another injunction blocked the removal of men from women's prisons despite the risk of physical harm to female prisoners.
A third injunction blocked the executive branch from doing anything about so-called sanctuary cities. It went wildly overboard and asserted the White House cannot even have conversations about sanctuary cities.
These are just a few examples of the absurd judicial micro-management we are witnessing.
When President Thomas Jefferson was working to build and protect our new nation, he warned that government ultimately controlled by judges would be a road to despotism. In a letter to William Jarvis on Sept. 28, 1820, Jefferson wrote:
"You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indee[d] and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy."
As I testified at a House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, the Founding Fathers all believed that the three branches of government should be co-equal. If anything, the judiciary would be the weakest of the three branches. They were clear that the two elected branches could correct the judicial branch if it tried to impose its will on the American people.
Alexander Hamilton warned in the Federalist Papers that the legislative and executive branches could powerfully respond to judges – and judges would have no means of defending themselves.
As president, Jefferson and the Democrats eliminated 14 of 34 federal judges in the Judiciary Act of 1802. They did not impeach anyone (a lengthy and difficult task). Jefferson simply abolished the judgeships and the judges no longer had jobs.
We do not have to eliminate district courts in the Jeffersonian tradition – unless we are forced to.
Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will recognize that judicial tyranny by lower courts is intolerable and unsustainable. The High Court could take decisive steps to eliminate nationwide injunctions by local judges – or make a rule that they are immediately adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the House and Senate have begun work to correct absurd overreach by the most radical district court judges.
This week's introduction of the Judicial Relief Clarification Act of 2025 by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley and 20 senators is a powerful signal that the Senate can defend itself against tyrannical judges. When this is combined with Congressman Darrell Issa's No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (which passed in the House by 219-213) it's clear the district judges are forcing a constitutional crisis.
We must protect the American people's right to elect those who manage the federal government. Lower court judges who think they can micromanage and override the elected president and Congress have a simple path: Resign and run for office.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will end this absurdity. If not, the Congress and the president will have to exercise their constitutional authority and eliminate nationwide injunctions by district judges.
There is no alternative if we are to retain government of, by, and for the people.