Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is set to address lawmakers about what he describes as a "potential judicial coup d’état." This warning will come during a congressional hearing focused on the actions of federal judges that he claims are overstepping their authority. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday and will involve two subcommittees of the House Judiciary Committee.
Gingrich’s testimony will center around the judicial system and the impact of recent court orders that have hindered many initiatives from President Donald Trump’s administration. He argues that federal judges have issued a series of broad injunctions that limit the president’s ability to carry out his agenda, including issues like worker dismissals and deportations.
In his prepared remarks, Gingrich highlights a troubling trend: 15 district judges have allegedly taken control over various executive functions through nationwide injunctions since Trump took office on January 20, 2025. He views this as a serious constitutional issue, stating that it undermines the balance of power among the branches of government. Gingrich asserts that this situation violates the Constitution and contradicts over 200 years of American legal history.
He will be joined at the hearing by Paul Larkin, a legal scholar from the Heritage Foundation, and Cindy Romero, a victim of the Tren de Aragua gang. Together, they will discuss the implications of judicial practices and propose potential solutions.
Gingrich points out that the number of nationwide injunctions against Trump is already higher than those issued against previous presidents during their first months in office. He notes that a significant majority of these injunctions—92%—were issued by judges appointed by Democratic presidents. This statistic raises concerns for Gingrich, who believes it suggests a political bias within the judiciary.
To address this issue, Gingrich is calling for Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to create a rule that would ensure any nationwide injunction from a lower court is reviewed by the Supreme Court immediately. He is also advocating for the "No Rogue Rulings Act," a proposed bill that would limit judges to issuing injunctions that only affect the parties involved in a specific case.
Larkin, in his own written statement, will argue against the legality of nationwide injunctions in cases that are not certified as nationwide class actions. He believes that such practices are not only unlawful but also unwise, as they grant relief to individuals who are not directly involved in the cases.
The Trump administration has frequently sought the Supreme Court’s intervention in disputes with federal judges, but the court has largely remained silent, intervening only in specific instances.
As this hearing approaches, the tensions between the legislative and judicial branches continue to unfold, raising questions about the balance of power and the role of judges in shaping policy.