On the battlefield of judicial overreach, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, stood firm before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, alongside the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government. His message was clear: the wave of nationwide injunctions from rogue judges is nothing short of a potential “judicial coup d’etat.” This move, he argues, is a blatant violation of the Constitution and American history spanning over two centuries.
In his compelling opening remarks, Gingrich elaborated on the constitutional crisis he perceives, stating:
“I thank Chairmen Issa and Roy, Ranking Members Johnson and Scanlon, and all the members of the Subcommittees for allowing me to testify. There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the Judicial Branch’s effort to fully override the Legislative and Executive branches.”
Since the inception of the current administration, an alarming number of 15 district judges have wielded nationwide injunctions to seize control of Executive Branch duties. Gingrich likened this to a judicial coup d’etat, emphasizing its unconstitutionality and historical anomaly.
Gingrich drew parallels to history, recalling the 12 Federalist judges President John Adams appointed during his final days in office, aiming to thwart President Thomas Jefferson’s agenda. Faced with the impracticality of impeachment, Jefferson and Congress took decisive action, abolishing the courts where these judges served through the Judiciary Act of 1802—a testament to the constitutional balance of power.
The rise of unelected lower-court judges usurping power is not new. Gingrich highlighted a 2012 publication, “Bringing the Court Back under the Constitution,” co-authored with Vince Haley, which he submitted for the record.
Statistics from the Harvard Law Review underscore the issue: 96 nationwide injunctions were ordered from 2001 to 2023, with two-thirds targeting President Trump’s administration. A staggering 92% of these were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents.
Since January 20, 2025, the Trump administration has faced 15 nationwide injunctions—outnumbering those during the entire terms of Presidents George W. Bush and Joe Biden, and nearly matching President Obama’s years in office.
Gingrich warns against judges micromanaging the Executive Branch and undermining a Commander in Chief elected by 77.3 million Americans. This is especially critical in matters of national defense and public safety, where speed is of the essence.
His summary towards action is outlined in four propositions:
- The courts have always been challenged: From Jefferson to Lincoln, history shows that presidents have contested judicial overreach.
- The Legislative and Executive can defend their rights: As history proves, they are not powerless against judiciary actions.
- Supreme Court intervention: Chief Justice Roberts could establish a rule suspending nationwide injunctions against the Executive Branch until reviewed by the Supreme Court.
- Congress and the President must act: Legislative steps, such as Chairman Issa’s No Rogue Rulings Act, signal the necessity to reign in the judiciary.
This hearing represents a critical step, highlighting the need for ongoing discussions to ensure no single government branch, particularly the judiciary, oversteps its bounds.
“The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the executive branch & override a commander-in-chief who received 73 million votes should trouble every American.”
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP)
April 1, 2025
Watch the full testimony below:
