IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1315 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Supreme 

Court of the United States should use its powers under the All Writs 

Act to protect its jurisdiction and bring the questions of Federal and 

constitutional law and equity before the Court for resolution with all 

deliberate speed and possible urgency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2024 

Mr. TIMMONS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the Supreme Court of the United States should use 

its powers under the All Writs Act to protect its jurisdiction and bring the questions of Federal and constitutional law and equity before the Court for resolution 

with all deliberate speed and possible urgency. 

Whereas the United States is founded on the constitutional 

bedrock principles of fair trials and equal justice for all 

before the law; 

Whereas the use of weaponized prosecutions, ‘‘lawfare’’, political show trials, two-tiered justice systems, and targeted 

political prosecutions are hostile to the founding principles of the United States; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 1315 IH 

Whereas, in the case of The People of the State of New York 

v. Donald J. Trump, a conviction on several counts was 

entered against former President and presumptive Republican nominee for President, former President Donald 

J. Trump, on May 20, 2024, in the Supreme Court of 

the State of New York, New York County; 

Whereas this conviction was the result of a targeted, dogged, 

abusive, desperate, and politically motivated prosecution 

by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg; 

Whereas District Attorney Alvin Bragg resurrected a zombie 

case, declined by the Federal prosecutors of the Southern 

District of New York and previously declined by his own 

District Attorney’s office; 

Whereas the Federal Election Commission likewise found no 

reason to issue a civil fine over the same allegations; 

Whereas elected District Attorney Alvin Bragg resurrected 

this zombie case to fulfill his electoral promise to New 

Yorkers to hold former President Trump ‘‘accountable’’; 

Whereas Alvin Bragg even went so far as to staff his office 

with zealous activists, like former senior Biden Department of Justice official Matthew Colangelo, who has previously targeted former President Trump, to drive the 

prosecution; 

Whereas the judge in the case, Juan Merchan, has and had 

a clear conflict of interest in the case, with his daughter’s 

role as president of Authentic Campaigns, a firm known 

for representing and fundraising for Democrat politicians, and whose Democrat clients have fundraised off of 

this prosecution; 

Whereas the New York State Commission on Judiciary Conduct privately cautioned Judge Merchan in July over his 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 1315 IH 

own illegal and unethical political donations to Biden and 

Democrats in 2020, while a sitting judge of the New 

York State Supreme Court; 

Whereas members of this chamber have filed a complaint 

against Judge Merchan with the New York State Commission on Judiciary Conduct regarding these improprieties; 

Whereas throughout the pretrial and trial proceedings Judge 

Merchan consistently demonstrated favor toward the 

prosecution through rulings and unconstitutional gag orders on the presumptive Republican nominee for President; 

Whereas the unprecedented nature of the prosecution and 

overwhelming public interest in the case of The People of 

the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is matter of 

public record and merits both judicial notice and judicial 

intervention from superior Federal courts; 

Whereas this conviction was based on novel, questionable, 

and untested legal theories advanced for the purpose of 

a targeted prosecution against the former President and 

presumptive Republican nominee; 

Whereas there are serious, substantial, and dire questions of 

Federal and constitutional law under the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment, requiring dispositive resolution before 

the Court arising from multiple reversible, clear errors in 

the case of The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump; 

Whereas the charges against former President Trump were 

misdemeanors time-barred by the New York statute of 

limitations; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 1315 IH 

Whereas the charges against former President Trump involved conduct allegations, such as Federal elections law 

violations, that are the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal 

authorities to enforce and resolve; 

Whereas former President Trump was convicted based on uncharged conduct, ranging from conspiracy to conceal a 

Federal election law violation and falsification of business 

records, to tax law violations, which never had to be proven at trial or specified; 

Whereas that uncharged and unproven conduct provided the 

predicate for felony escalation and the basis for avoiding 

the time-bar that would otherwise have precluded the entire proceeding; 

Whereas prosecutors were permitted to expressly state to the 

jury that it was ‘‘a fact’’ that Federal election law violations occurred in this case at the direction of former 

President Trump, even though that ‘‘fact’’ was directly at 

issue in the case and required a factual finding by the 

jury to maintain the felony escalation theory; 

Whereas the jury instructions in the case were constitutionally deficient and legally flawed by allowing for a nonunanimous, or ‘‘4–4–4’’ verdict on the uncharged conduct, despite the clear command of the Supreme Court 

that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments ‘‘require[] a 

unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense,’’ in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020); 

Whereas the verdict form returned in the case did not even 

ask for the specificity of jury findings of the various uncharged conduct theories found in the case, denying the 

former President his right to fair notice and confrontation; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 1315 IH 

Whereas the conviction was obtained in part through the testimony of a discredited witness with a personal animus 

toward former President Trump, admitted felon and disbarred attorney Michael D. Cohen; 

Whereas the conviction was obtained in part through the 

entry of other highly prejudicial and immaterial testimony and evidence that never should have been admitted; 

Whereas former President Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States, the 

highest office in the Nation, and the occupant of which 

is a matter of utmost public importance; 

Whereas the Republican Convention to nominate a Presidential candidate is on July 11, 2024, and the Presidential election is November 5, 2024; 

Whereas the felony conviction of a presumptive major party 

nominee for President can cause confusion for candidate 

ballot access, depending on State law and despite the 

opinion of the Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, No. 

23–719 (2023) (reversing the removal of Donald Trump 

from Colorado’s Republican primary ballot); 

Whereas the politically motivated prosecution and conviction 

draws into question the integrity of Federal Presidential 

elections, of which the government ‘‘indisputably has a 

compelling interest in preserving the integrity . . .’’Eu v. 

San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 

U. S. 214, 231 (1989); 

Whereas the bias of both the judge and prosecutor in this 

case, as well as the numerous procedural flaws, raises 

dire issues of judicial impartiality, the appearance of propriety, and faith in the judicial system; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
6 

•HRES 1315 IH 

Whereas the ‘‘principles of equity’’ require speedy resolution 

of legal issues that could affect voter decision and information at ‘‘a time sufficiently early to permit the holding 

of elections . . . without great difficulty’’, cf. Reynolds v. 

Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585–86 (1964); 

Whereas the public interest is in final and Supreme disposition of the substantial questions of Federal law raised in 

the case; 

Whereas the Supreme Court has previously intervened in 

order to provide final and dispositive resolution as to 

questions of law and equity arising from essential and 

crucial Presidential electoral deadlines, e.g., Bush v. 

Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000); and 

Whereas under the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. 1651) ‘‘the Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid 

of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) immediate resolution of these matters is 

4 necessary for the people of the United States to 

5 make informed decisions about the upcoming Presi6 dential election, would be necessary and appropriate 

7 in aid of the respective jurisdictions of the Federal 

8 courts, is demanded by the principles of equity, and 

9 is agreeable to the usages and principles of law; and 

10 (2) with all due deference to the respective co11 equal branches of government, that the Supreme 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
7 

•HRES 1315 IH 

1 Court of the United States should use its powers 

2 under the All Writs Act to protect its jurisdiction 

3 and bring the questions of Federal and constitu4 tional law and equity before the Court for resolution 

5 with all deliberate speed and possible urgency. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS