Trump speaks to China’s Xi Jinping days before inauguration

(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump’s battle with the judiciary escalates, House Republicans are eyeing ways to rein in judges from blocking parts of his agenda.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan said on Monday his panel will hold hearings next week on U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who is at the center of the administration’s legal fight over deportation flights and the Alien Enemies Act.

Trump accused Boasberg — an Obama appointee who was first named to a lower Washington, D.C., court by President George W. Bush — of bias and called for his impeachment after he blocked the administration from using a centuries-old law to deport more than 200 alleged gang members to El Salvador.

Trump and his Republican allies, including Jordan, have also taken issue with the use of injunctions and temporary restraining orders to halt Trump policies nationwide as the courts weigh the merits of each case.

“It really starts to look like Judge Boasberg is operating purely political against the president, and that’s what we want to have hearings on — this broad issue and some of what Judge Boasberg is doing,” Jordan said on Fox News.

Jordan said he thought Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will do the same.

In addition to hearings, Jordan said he expects House Republican leadership to move forward with a bill from California Rep. Darrell Issa aimed at limiting some judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions.

Issa’s bill — entitled the “No Rogue Rulings Act” — would put restrictions on federal judges issuing orders providing injunctive relief that impacts the entire country outside their districts.

Jordan called it a “good piece of legislation.” The bill was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee before lawmakers broke for recess earlier this month.

Speaker Mike Johnson appears to be warming up to the idea of potentially impeaching judges who rule against Trump, saying “everything is on the table.”

“Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. We’re looking at all the alternatives that we have to address this problem. Activist judges are a serious threat to our system,” Johnson said Monday afternoon.

Johnson confirmed that the GOP-led House will hold hearings to “highlight the abuses” of federal judges — saying lawmakers “may wind up questioning some of these judges themselves to have them defend their actions.”

“We’ll see about limiting the scope of federal injunctions,” he added. “One judge should not be able to suspend and uphold everything that a president does on their issues. I think the American people agree with that.”

Over the weekend, Johnson appeared to endorse the measure, writing on X that the House is “working overtime to limit the abuses of activist federal judges.”

“Speaker Johnson’s indicated he’d like to get this bill to the floor next week and move it through the process,” Jordan told Fox News. “So, we think there’s some things we can do legislatively, and then, frankly, there’s the broader issue of all these judges’ injunctions and then decisions like Judge Boasberg … what he’s trying to do, and how that case is working.”

Meanwhile, the push from Trump, Elon Musk and several Republican hardliners to impeach Boasberg and other judges faces steeper obstacles.

Johnson has not said where he stands on pursuing impeachment, but given the slim House majority, it would be extremely difficult to get the House Republican conference together to vote to impeach a judge.

If the House were to successfully impeach a judge, the Senate would be compelled to act in some way, but the odds of a Senate conviction are almost zero, as it would require support from at least 14 Democrats.

As the rhetoric ramps up between the Trump administration and the courts, the U.S. Marshals Service is warning federal judges of an increase in threats, ABC News reported. Chief Justice John Roberts last week issued a rare public statement amid Trump’s attacks on Boasberg, saying impeachment was not “an appropriate response” to legal disagreements and that the correct path forward was the appeals process.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Conservative legislators are increasingly speaking out against the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling on same-sex marriage equality.

Idaho legislators began the trend in January when the state House and Senate passed a resolution calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision — which the court cannot do unless presented with a case on the issue. Some Republican lawmakers in at least four other states like Michigan, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have followed suit with calls to the Supreme Court.

In North Dakota, the resolution passed the state House with a vote of 52-40 and is headed to the Senate. In South Dakota, the state’s House Judiciary Committee sent the proposal on the 41st Legislative Day –deferring the bill to the final day of a legislative session, when it will no longer be considered, and effectively killing the bill.

In Montana and Michigan, the bills have yet to face legislative scrutiny.

Resolutions have no legal authority and are not binding law, but instead allow legislative bodies to express their collective opinions.

The resolutions in four other states echo similar sentiments about the merits of the Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which established the right to same-sex marriage under the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Some legislators behind the resolutions argue that the legality of gay marriage should be left to states to decide, while others argue that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman.

LGBTQ advocates and allies have criticized the efforts, arguing that the majority of Americans approve of same-sex marriage and say the efforts undermine “personal freedoms.”

A 2024 Gallup poll found that 69% of Americans continue to believe that marriage between same-sex couples should be legal, and 64% say gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable.

In Michigan, state Rep. Josh Schriver unveiled his own anti-gay marriage resolution on Feb. 25, arguing that restrictions on gay marriage are important to “preserve and grow our human race,” he said at a press conference announcing the resolution.

“Michigan Christians follow Christ’s definition of marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, an institution established to glorify God and produce children,” said Schriver.

In a press release, he added: “The new resolution urges the preservation of the sanctity of marriage and constitutional protections that ensure freedom of conscience for all Michigan residents.”

Local Democratic leaders denounced the resolution, arguing that it discriminates against the rights of LGBTQ Americans and distracts from more pressing issues facing Michigan residents.

“At a time when Michiganders are looking to their leaders to address pressing issues like lowering costs and protecting our economy, House Republicans are choosing to focus on undermining the personal freedoms of Michigan residents,” state Rep. Mike McFall said.

“This resolution is not only a blatant attempt to roll back the clock on civil rights, but it is also out of step with the values and priorities of our state.”

The Michigan resolution has been referred to the Committee on Government Operations and has not yet been put to a vote.

The handful of resolutions come after Associate Justice Clarence Thomas expressed interest in revisiting the Obergefell decision in his concurring opinion on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that overturned the federal right to abortion.

He wrote: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents,” such as Obergefell. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas said.

Thomas had issued a dissenting opinion in 2015 against same-sex marriage equality.

More than two dozen states have some kind of restriction on same-sex marriage that could be triggered if the Supreme Court one day overturns its 2015 decision, according to legislative tracking group Movement Advancement Project. This is because marriage equality has not yet been codified and enshrined into law nationwide.

However, the Respect for Marriage Law signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022 guarantees the federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages in the event of an overturned Supreme Court decision.

It requires all states to recognize legally certified marriages, even if they were done in a state where it is later banned or done in another state entirely.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Latino and immigrant lawmakers are sounding the alarm as their school districts brace for deportations in the second Trump administration.

“Think about that — that nothing is off limits, that raids could go and happen in our public schools,” New York Rep. Nydia Velazquez said. “You know, that is the point: cruelty. You got to be heartless to say publicly that we are going to send ICE to our schools — heartless.”

In its first press conference of the 119th Congress, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus condemned President Donald Trump’s immigration executive orders and the Department of Homeland Security revoking long-standing restrictions that thwarted Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting raids on schools and other sensitive areas.

“[Trump] says he’s targeting criminals, but he just removed the restrictions that stopped ICE from conducting raids on schools, on hospitals and in churches,” Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro said at the more-than-hourlong presser. “I would ask you who he believes among those kids is a criminal sitting in a first grade class. Who are the criminals that he’s going after in the Catholic Church, in the Presbyterian Church, in the nondenominational churches? Who are those criminals?”

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Benjamine Huffman said that to curb the “invasion” at the border, the policy is needed to “return the humanitarian parole program to its original purpose of looking at migrants on a case-by-case basis.”

“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murders and rapists — who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” Huffman wrote in a statement on Tuesday.

ABC News contributor John Cohen said he’s worked in law enforcement and homeland security for over four decades and has not seen any intelligence or evidence to support that the majority of persons crossing the southern border are murderers, rapist, gang members or terrorists or that they are hiding in churches and schools.

According to education experts such as Immschools founder Viridiana Carrizales, whose organization partners with school districts to create more welcoming and safe schools for immigrant K-12 students, Trump’s large-scale operation is worrying some families who dealt with the “real fear” of deportations during Trump’s first term.

“They know that this has happened in the past,” Carrizales told ABC News.

“It could maybe pose a threat and become even more real, or even more heightened or intense, than what they [undocumented families] experienced in 2017,” she said.

The debate over immigration is now finding its way inside the classroom, especially in border states nationwide, for these lawmakers and their undocumented constituents.

In California, the San Diego and Fresno unified school districts, the state’s second and third largest districts, are actively sharing immigration support and resources so that its families know their rights.

During a board meeting on the district’s recommitment to being a welcoming environment, Fabiola Bagula, interim superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District, said students have to be met with “unwavering care” during uncertain times.

“You can hold the need for having some sort of radical immigration reform, but you also need to uphold the safety of each student that enters our buildings,” Bagula said.

California Rep. Juan Vargas, a Democrat, slammed DHS and Republicans for their stance on immigration.

“Schools, places of worship, and hospitals provide essential services to all,” Vargas posted on X. “They should not be sites of immigration enforcement.”

Immigrant sanctuary cities are also having to address the threat of ICE showing up at schools. New York City Public Schools on Friday circulated resources for what to do if ICE officers show up at schools. It is also holding a “Know Their Rights” town hall next week.

Texas lawmakers aim to prevent ICE raids from disrupting schools, too.

“Just because ICE comes knocking on the door doesn’t mean you have to open it,” Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia said.

Garcia told ABC News she is holding a “Know Your Rights” workshop on Capitol Hill next week with representatives from the Houston Independent School District.

“We’ve embarked on an education campaign to make sure that the school districts know what they should or shouldn’t do,” Garcia said. “I don’t know what they’re [DHS] going to do with them, but just because they’re going to send them to school doesn’t mean school stops. So I think there’s some do’s and don’ts, there’s some rights and responsibilities. And what’s important is an education campaign, and that’s what we’re doing now.”

The deportation plans exacerbated Texas educator and DACA recipient Karen Reyes’ and her students’ anxieties.

“I sometimes find myself thinking ‘Will my family experience this? Will my students? How will I explain what deportation is if it impacts someone in my classroom?'” Reyes said in a statement obtained by ABC News.

The National Parents Union also condemned the announcement allowing law enforcement to make arrests at schools.

“Law abiding individuals and their families should be treated humanely and with dignity,” the union wrote in a statement. “The decision to go after families in safe places sends a disgraceful message that threatens to emotionally scar young children whose families may be deported and other young children caught up in the crossfire.”

Meanwhile, Washington Rep. Emily Randall is working with school districts to confront the challenges ahead.

“This is only making students feel less safe in their classrooms and families less safe sending their kids to school,” she said. “Now that schools are no longer safe, folks are even more concerned, so we are having some of those conversations [with school leaders].”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.