Ranking Member Jamie Raskin Prepared Remarks for the Judicial Conference September 16, 2025 Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts, for the invitation. Forgive my directness here but the times are serious, as you know, our time is short. I have just five minutes and don't want to trespass on Senator Cruz's time. Sometimes these days I feel as if all the foundational principles are being trampled and lost. Often, I hear my colleagues in the House, and these are fellow Democrats, get up to protest some Executive usurpation of legislative power and they begin their lament with the plaintive cry, "We are a coequal branch of government..." And I always feel they have lost the argument right there just by repeating that fifth-grade dogma. First of all, co-equal is not even a word. It's an embarrassing redundancy like "very unique" or "irregardless. "
But there's a reason all legislative power is vested in the Congress and there's a reason it's in Article I. The Founders had a revolution against monarchy and its constant assaults on liberty. In America, the Framers determined, only the representatives of the people would have power to declare wars, pass budgets, impose taxes and tariffs, and so on. Article lis pages and pages of all the powers vested in Congress. Then you get to Article Il, which is tiny. The key paragraph says a president shall be removed from office upon impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. If we are co-equal, why do we have the power to impeach, try, convict, remove and permanently disqualify the president and he doesn't have the power to impeach, try, convict, remove and disqualify us? The core job of the president is plain: "To Take care that the laws are faithfully executed." That's it. Not abused, not thwarted, not impounded, not redirected, but faithfully executed. A lot of the cases entering the federal courts are variations on this theme.
Here's the remarkable thing: Americans have brought over 300 cases in federal district courts against the Administration so far for usurping legislative powers, defying federal laws, or violating the rights of the people. This summer, researchers found that plaintiffs were winning an astonishing 77% of the cases in the district courts. Moreover, they found that President Trump was losing about equally before Republican-appointed judges (72%) and Democratic-appointed judges (80%). The numbers in the federal circuit courts of appeal are similar, with plaintiffs against the Administration winning overwhelmingly and again without a sharp partisan valence to the appeals courts' voting. A good example is the birthright citizenship case where four district court judges, two appointed by Republican presidents and two appointed by Democratic presidents, all struck down the President's purported negation of birthright citizenship. Then, on appeal, three circuit courts again all ruled against the Administration. But everything is flipped when the cases come to the Supreme Court.
This rules - @raskin.house.gov straight up called out Roberts to his face.
democrats-judiciary.house.gov/media-center...
