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. JACK-
SON 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. LAW-
RENCE, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. SCHNEIDER, Ms. SLAUGH-
TER, 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 estab-
lishes the Federal judiciary as an independent and co- 
equal branch of government; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:15 Feb 08, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR105.IH
HR105
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
•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 im-
pugned the motives of Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who pre-
sided over litigation related to Trump University, by de-
claring 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 Wash-
ington, 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!’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:15 Feb 08, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR105.IH
HR105
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
•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 Asso-
ciation stated that ‘‘personal attacks on judges are at-
tacks on our Constitution’’; 
Whereas public figures and scholars from across the ideolog-
ical 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’’; 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:15 Feb 08, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6300
E:\BILLS\HR105.IH
HR105
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
•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 sepa-
ration 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 ju-
dicial orders, and will further inflame people’s distrust of 
border agents, whether they do or not’’: Now, therefore, 
be it 
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep-
resentatives that— 
(1) the legislative, executive, and judicial 
branches are co-equal, and each deserves the respect 
of the others; 
(2) an independent judiciary is fundamental to 
the checks and balances embodied by the separation 
of powers, is essential to maintaining respect for the 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:15 Feb 08, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\HR105.IH
HR105
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS
•HRES 105 IH 
rule of law, and is critical to our constitutional de-
mocracy; 
(3) attacks against the judiciary, as an institu-
tion, threaten to weaken public confidence in the 
courts as a fair and impartial arbiter of the law; and 
(4) whether or not one agrees with the sub-
stance of a particular judicial decision, it is inappro-
priate for sitting Presidents, or other government of-
ficials, to engage in ad hominem attacks against a 
judge, or otherwise place political pressure designed 
to undermine the independence of that judge, or to 
erode trust in the entire court system. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
05:15 Feb 08, 2017
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\HR105.IH
HR105
rfrederick on DSKBCBPHB2PROD with BILLS