SCOOP: Mike Johnson meeting House Judiciary Committee as GOP mulls response to activist judges blocking Trump

FIRST ON FOX: Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is expected to privately meet with Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, two people familiar with the plans told Fox News Digital.

The timing or reason for the meeting is not immediately clear, but it comes as Republicans in Congress map out how to respond to what they see as “activist” judges blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The committee is currently scheduled to mark up several pieces of legislation, unrelated to the judicial standoff, on Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. ET. Johnson is scheduled to hold his weekly press conference at that time.

It comes as the Trump administration has faced more than a dozen injunctions from various district court judges across the country on a range of policy decisions.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 7, 2025.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., announced on X Monday that lawmakers would be voting on a bill next week led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to limit U.S. district court judges’ ability to hand down nationwide injunctions.

Fox News Digital was told last week that Trump himself expressed interest in the bill.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is expected to hold a hearing on the issue of activist judges early next week.

Several conservative lawmakers have also introduced or threatened resolutions to impeach specific judges blocking Trump’s agenda.

Johnson has been known to meet with various factions of the House GOP when trying to push key pieces of legislation, particularly when there are differing opinions on what to do, to ensure all lawmakers who want to express a viewpoint are heard.

But House GOP leaders have also been privately wary of getting behind any of the calls for impeachment, worried it would not be the most effective approach.

‘WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT’: US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 7, 2025.  (REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo/File Photo)

Trump, however, has previously signaled interest in impeaching U.S. district court Judge James Boasberg after he issued an emergency order blocking the administration’s deportation of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced a resolution to impeach Boasberg for “abuse of power” last week. The legislation gained three new supporters on Monday and now has 19 total co-sponsors.

Some House Republicans expressed hesitation at the idea when asked by Fox News Digital on Monday night, however.

“We shouldn’t lower the standard for impeachment, but we should – we meaning Congress – should provide a remedy for district court judges who totally overreach,” Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., said.

Another House Republican who declined to be named said they were “totally opposed” to impeachment.

“That’s what the appeals process is for,” they said.

Freshman GOP Rep. Brandon Gill introduced a bill to impeach US District Court Judge James Boasberg (Getty Images)

Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., contended that the impeachment resolutions sent a necessary message. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The reason I sponsored Gill’s efforts is just – if we don’t say anything, the judges are going to be like, ‘Oh, we can do whatever we want.’ So they need to know that we are watching and that there’s a group of us that, if that’s what it takes, we would support that,” Stutzman said.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said Issa’s bill was a “start” but said the House Freedom Caucus would have discussions about whether the group wanted to push for impeachment.

Fox News Digital reached out to Johnson’s office and the House Judiciary Committee for comment but did not immediately hear back.