IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 105 

Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that an Independent 

Judiciary is Fundamental to American Democracy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2017 

Mr. NADLER (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COHEN, Mr. TONKO, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. CICILLINE, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. 

TED LIEU of California, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. JAYAPAL, Ms. JUDY CHU of 

California, Mr. DEUTCH, Mr. JEFFRIES, Mr. SWALWELL of California, 

Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. BASS, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Ms. 

CLARKE of New York, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. KILDEE, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California, Mr. RUIZ, Mr. RICHMOND, Mr. 

VELA, Mr. GUTIE ́RREZ, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. 

VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SOTO, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mr. COURTNEY, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N

of New Mexico, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mrs. DAVIS

of California, Mr. TAKANO, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. SEWELL

of Alabama, and Ms. NORTON) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives that 

an Independent Judiciary is Fundamental to American 

Democracy. 

Whereas Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the Federal judiciary as an independent and coequal branch of government; 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 105 IH 

Whereas, in Federalist Number 78, Alexander Hamilton 

wrote that ‘‘The complete independence of the courts of 

justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution’’; 

Whereas the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle of 

judicial independence for more than 200 years, beginning 

with the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison, in 

which Court ruled that ‘‘It is emphatically the province 

and duty of the judicial department to say what the law 

is’’; 

Whereas the judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional 

system; 

Whereas personal attacks on the character and integrity of 

a sitting Federal judge by a Federal official is contrary 

to longstanding tradition, and undermines the principle 

of judicial independence; 

Whereas, in June of 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump impugned the motives of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presided over litigation related to Trump University, by declaring that Judge Curiel was a ‘‘total disgrace’’ who had 

‘‘an absolute conflict’’ because of his Mexican heritage; 

Whereas, on February 3, 2017, Judge James L. Robart, 

Federal District Judge for the Western District of Washington, placed a temporary stay on the Executive order 

titled ‘‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist 

Entry into the United States’’; 

Whereas, in response to Judge Robart’s Order, President 

Trump tweeted, ‘‘The opinion of this so-called judge, 

which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our 

country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!’’; 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 105 IH 

Whereas several of President Trump’s subsequent tweets 

both attacked Judge Robart specifically, and the court 

system more generally, including: 

(1) ‘‘What is our country coming to when a judge 

can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, 

even with bad intentions, can come into U.S.?’’; 

(2) ‘‘Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many 

very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our 

country. A terrible decision.’’; 

(3) ‘‘The judge opens up our country to potential 

terrorists and others that do not have our best interests 

at heart. Bad people are very happy!’’; 

(4) ‘‘Just cannot believe a judge would put our 

country in such peril. If something happens blame him 

and court system. People pouring in. Bad!’’; and 

(5) ‘‘I have instructed Homeland Security to check 

people coming into our country VERY CAREFULLY. 

The courts are making the job very difficult!’’; 

Whereas the White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, 

issued a statement referring to Judge Robart’s ruling as 

‘‘outrageous’’ but reissued the statement ten minutes 

later without the word outrageous; 

Whereas Linda Klein, President of the American Bar Association stated that ‘‘personal attacks on judges are attacks on our Constitution’’; 

Whereas public figures and scholars from across the ideological spectrum have raised concerns with President 

Trump’s comments; 

Whereas Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) 

stated, ‘‘I think it is best not to single out judges for 

criticism’’; 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HRES 105 IH 

Whereas the former Acting Solicitor General under President 

Obama, Neil Katyal, tweeted, ‘‘ ‘So-called judge’? As the 

former top courtroom lawyer for the federal govt, I’ve 

never seen a president attack a sitting judge this way.’’; 

Whereas Senator Ben Sasse, (R–NE) noted, ‘‘We don’t have 

any so-called judges, we have real judges’’; 

Whereas Joe Scarborough argued, ‘‘When a president uses 

social media to question the legitimacy of a federal judge 

following an inconvenient (and temporary) outcome, that 

is simply unacceptable.’’; 

Whereas Yale University professor, Bruce Ackerman, stated, 

‘‘The president is assaulting the foundations of the separation of powers in condemning the judge for his decision 

in a tweet.’’; and 

Whereas University of Chicago Professor Eric Posner argued, 

‘‘Mr. Trump’s attack on Judge Robart’s integrity could 

encourage executive branch officials to disregard other judicial orders, and will further inflame people’s distrust of 

border agents, whether they do or not’’: Now, therefore, 

be it 

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

3 (1) the legislative, executive, and judicial 

4 branches are co-equal, and each deserves the respect 

5 of the others; 

6 (2) an independent judiciary is fundamental to 

7 the checks and balances embodied by the separation 

8 of powers, is essential to maintaining respect for the 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
5 

•HRES 105 IH 

1 rule of law, and is critical to our constitutional de2 mocracy; 

3 (3) attacks against the judiciary, as an institu4 tion, threaten to weaken public confidence in the 

5 courts as a fair and impartial arbiter of the law; and 

6 (4) whether or not one agrees with the sub7 stance of a particular judicial decision, it is inappro8 priate for sitting Presidents, or other government of9 ficials, to engage in ad hominem attacks against a 

10 judge, or otherwise place political pressure designed 

11 to undermine the independence of that judge, or to 

12 erode trust in the entire court system. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS