JUST IN: Mike Johnson’s WORST FEAR ERUPTS! MAGA Lawsuit BLOWS UP in Court

Let's start here with House Speaker Mike Johnson, also issuing an open threat to the federal judiciary today. Johnson's saying that Congress has the authority to pull funding to federal courts. The congressman also adding that he is open to the idea here of potentially impeaching judges who rule against the president, saying that, quote, everything is on the table. Well, this comes as the White House faces high stakes legal battles over the deportation

of alleged Venezuelan gang members and an executive order banning transgender service members from the military. So I want to bring back Jay, who of course is on the Hill alongside ABC News investigative reporter Olivia Rubin, who's with us now as well. And so first of all, Jay, you know, what more do we know here about Speaker Johnson's comments?

And what are you hearing from lawmakers on the Hill?

Because I think the real question here is there, is there weight behind this threat? So Johnson's gotten some pressure from lawmakers in his own party to be open to impeaching federal judges who rule against President Trump. But he didn't go that far today. Instead, he made this veiled threat where he said Congress is in charge of the budgets of these various courts. They're in charge of the drawing and makeup of these federal court districts

where these district court judges preside. He's also thrown his weight behind this legislation from Daryl Issa of California to try to rein in how broad an injunction can be. You remember injunctions because every time there's some executive order from President Trump

and the same goes for the Biden administration with conservative judges, a judge would block that executive order from going into effect while a broader... And on a different note, we can't overlook the massive legal hit Mike Johnson just took in federal court. I'm talking about a complete and utter smackdown, one that could seriously jeopardize his career. A judge laid it out clear as day, basically saying Johnson's actions were way out of line

and tossed his entire defense aside like yesterday's news. October 26th, 2025 is a day that will go down in infamy for him, especially since he tried to block a Democrat who won her election fair and square from being sworn into Congress. And we're not just talking about any candidate here. This woman represents over 700,000 people. It's honestly hard to believe he stepped that far out of bounds. So here's the scoop. In Arizona, Mike Johnson just pulled a fast one saying, nope, not happening. You don't get your seat. Honestly, can you believe the nerve? I mean, this guy is the

Speaker of the House, the third in line for the presidency, and he's treating congressional seats like they're just some toy he can play with when it suits him. Court case plays out. Darrell Ice's bill wants to try to rein in that power.

Mike Johnson has said Republicans are gonna put it on the floor next week for a vote, but he's not going the full length, Kena, that some in his party, chief among them, Elon Musk, have called on him to do, which is open up the floodgates of this impeachment proceeding of federal judges who rule against President Trump. We know Elon Musk has backed House Republicans who get behind impeaching federal judges, but Mike Johnson not going that far today.

And Olivia, what do we know about these cases that we talked about, right? There's these court cases that are playing out against the Trump administration, specifically the battle over deportation flights, as well as that executive order that bans trans service members from the military. What's the latest on both of those cases, Olivia?

Well, the Trump administration taking a step that we had expected them to take in the deportation case, which is invoking the state's secret privilege. Essentially, they're saying that the judge was asking for more information about those flights to determine if the Trump administration disobeyed his order to turn the flights around. They're saying this information is so sensitive that if we disclosed it to you, it would compromise national security. And the government using affidavits from Christy Noem, the Department of Homeland

Security Secretary, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Mark Rubio, all to back this claim that it is too sensitive to give the judge more information. And really what the judge just wants is where did those flights land? What time did they take off? How many people were on those flights?

Now this is where things get really interesting because there's a connection to something even bigger, those infamous Jeffrey Epstein files. You know, the ones everyone has been itching to see, filled with names and connections that could shake up the powerful folks. The representative Johnson blocked someone

who would have been a crucial vote, number 218, which is exactly what was needed to push for a discharge petition to potentially release those files. What a coincidence that Johnson chose to halt the one person whose vote could stir the pot, right?

Nothing suspicious there at all, just sheer luck for the folks looking to keep those documents hidden. Meanwhile, Arizona's Attorney General, Chris Mays, was having none of it. She filed a lawsuit on October 21st, calling Johnson's actions a flagrant abuse of authority. Her words, not mine. And guess what? The federal judge totally backed her up.

They ended Johnson's legal defense just like that and told him he was wrong, forcing the House to step up. Let's not forget, this is the Speaker of the House we're talking about, the third person in line for the presidency, facing a federal judge for trying to manipulate who serves in Congress. You've got to wonder what kind of legal blunder it takes

to have your entire defense thrown out. It's not just losing, it's the judge saying your arguments are so weak they don't even deserve a second glance. That's a serious public legal embarrassment. So let's take a closer look at what went down because the details are just wild. For quite a while now, this district has had its fair share of representatives, none of whom were controversial newcomers or had questionable backgrounds.

We're talking about a regular elected official who won his election through honest means. Typically, once you win your race, you get sworn in alongside everyone else when the new Congress kicks off. It's how it's been for about 250 years in American democracy. Simple and drama-free. But then there's Mike Johnson, who decided to take a different route. He announced that Grego wouldn't be taking his seat with the incoming members,

and the excuse he tossed out was utterly ludicrous. He said there was some scheduling conflict or some kind of procedural issue, a vague explanation about needing more time to review things. Honestly, anyone paying attention could see right through that. The real reason was glaringly obvious. Johnson wanted to keep Galva from getting into Congress long enough to block a vote on the Epstein-Files discharge petition. That's the story behind this whole

debacle. All his procedural talk was just fluff to mask a pretty blatant partisan maneuver aimed at protecting certain interests from any scrutiny. It seems Johnson thought he could pull this off without anyone batting an eye. The Speaker holds a lot of sway over the House processes. There's a lot of discretion about how everything unfolds. In the midst of all the commotion surrounding a new Congress being sworn in, who's really going to care if one member gets held up? Who would actually make a fuss about it? Well, Arizona's Attorney

General Chris Mays had no intention of letting this slide. On October 21st, she filed a lawsuit in federal court stating that Johnson's refusal to seat Gava was a breach of the Constitution and voting rights, plus a blatant misuse of his authority. She was spot on because the Constitution is very clear on this matter. When someone wins an election for Congress, they have every right to take their seat. The Speaker can't just pick and choose which elected officials are welcome in the chamber. The lawsuit pretty plainly lays out the argument. Grieva won his election, met all the

constitutional criteria to serve in Congress, and there was absolutely no valid reason to delay his seating. The procedural excuses don't hold up at all against the facts. It's quite a situation with Johnson's actions, which seem transparently motivated by political gamesmanship rather than any legitimate concerns. The real goal here is to stop Gava's vote from moving forward the discharge petition on the Epstein files.

By using the procedural authority of the Speaker to keep voters from being heard, it's a pretty clear abuse of power. This not only undermines the rights of Arizona voters who selected Grajava, but also tramples on Grajava's own constitutional right to take his seat. And when it comes down to it, this goes against the very principles of representative democracy, which hinge on respecting electoral outcomes.

The twist in this story? The federal judge assigned to the whole mess took a hard look at Johnson's claims and basically labeled them as nonsense. I'm not joking when I say that the judge flat-out terminated Johnson's legal defense. That's the formal term you'd use when a court finds your arguments so weak that they don't warrant further discussion. It's like the judge saying, You're so off-base that I'm not even going to entertain what you're saying.

That's not just a loss. that's a major setback. It's tough when Johnson's lawyers had to go back and explain that their whole strategy was tossed out because the judge felt it had no merit whatsoever. The judge pointed out several crucial things. First, there's absolutely no solid procedural reason for refusing to seat Grajava. Johnson's excuses just don't stand up to any level ofava. Johnson's excuses just don't stand up to any level of scrutiny. They're clearly just a front. Second, the Speaker doesn't

have the authority to block elected representatives from taking their seats. That's outside the limits of the Speaker's power, no matter how you interpret the relevant rules. Third, the timing and the situation clearly show that this was driven by political motives, not any real procedural concerns. And finally, letting this kind of behavior slide would pave the way for dangerous precedents that could really harm representative democracy. If speakers can simply decide not to seat members based on personal preferences, it makes elections meaningless. The ruling party could easily control who gets to serve

based on how they might vote on contentious issues. So, the court has ordered the House to seat Gujava right away. No more stalling, no more procedural tricks, just make it happen. So, the situation with Johnson is pretty wild. He has to follow the federal court order and let the elected representative take his seat. There's really no way around it. Ignoring the court could put him in contempt, and that's a whole level of trouble that he seems smart enough to avoid.

Gava is going to be sworn in, which means his voters will finally get their representation, and Johnson's plan to block the Epstein-Files vote is about to flop big-time. Now let's break down what all this really means because it's bigger than just this case. First of all, with Gryo-Vava taking his place, the discharge petition could actually gather enough support. 18 more votes would hit that magic number, 218. That's the number needed to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files, and Congress would have to do it no matter how much Johnson wishes they wouldn't.

Discharge petitions are meant to let the majority in the House go over the heads of leadership when there's enough backing for an idea. All that effort Johnson put into hiding those files, all the political capital he burned, and the embarrassment he faced might just end up as a big fat nothing, making

him look bad while actually firing up the call for transparency. Then there's the question about who can lead. If Johnson had gotten away with this, what's to stop future speakers from doing the same? Thankfully, the court made it clear that this kind of move is totally unacceptable. You can't use your speaker role to sideline voters, nor can you treat congressional seats like bargaining chips.

This ruling sets a strong boundary, saying that no matter how much power you have, you can't just refuse to seat elected representatives. It's a crucial safeguard against any slide away from democracy, and the court put a stop to that nonsense before it could really take hold. Lastly, the whole Epstein files situation speaks to accountability for those with power. It raises the question of whether we have one system of justice for regular people and a different one for the wealthy elite. Johnson's efforts to keep those files hidden make his intentions pretty clear. The real

question remains, if he can't block Galva, does that mean the files will actually be released or are there still obstacles in the way? Even if the discharge petition does go through, there are always ways to downplay the fallout, like redactions and classifications. The legal troubles for Mike Johnson aren't just about what's happening in the courtroom, they signal a bigger issue for his leadership. Getting shot down by a federal court is pretty embarrassing,

and having your whole legal defense thrown out because it's clearly baseless? That's just plain humiliating. He's already juggling a divided caucus, budget fights, and looming shutdown threats, so adding a significant legal loss to the mix isn't doing him any favors.

You can bet that there are some Republicans now wondering if Johnson is really the guy they want at the helm, especially with midterms on the horizon. The Speaker's role demands authority and respect, and Johnson just showed he's willing to take some risky, constitutionally shaky maneuvers that really backfired. That's not exactly the kind of judgment that inspires confidence. The MAGA wing is going to feel

the sting from this too, as this is their playbook, aggressive tactics and pushing the boundaries. And in this instance, the court stepped in and said, Nope, that's too far. That's not great news for a political movement that thrives on the illusion of unstoppable momentum. When you face a public rebuke, it makes people wonder if your strategies really work, or if they just lead to trouble. When pushing limits results in getting shot down by federal judges,

it starts to look less like strength and more like recklessness. This opens the door for Republicans who aren't comfortable with the MAGA methods to step up and suggest a different way forward. Now let's not forget the Arizona situation. There are about 700,000 to 800,000 voters in that swing state who are witnessing this unfold.

They're going to remember that Mike Johnson attempted to silence their representation and that it took a lawsuit to finally get their elected official seated. Arizona is shifting towards purple, so giving voters there a reason to be upset with Republicans is just bad strategy. Johnson has handed Democrats a golden example of Republican overreach that they can use in their campaign ads.

Every Democratic candidate in Arizona can highlight this case and say, look at what they tried to do to your representation. That's strong messaging in a state where elections can swing by just a few votes. Attorney General Chris Mays really played this situation perfectly. So, here's the deal. Mays really nailed it by framing her actions as a defense of constitutional rights, pushing hard to protect the representation of Arizonans.

She really forced the issue and came out on top, which is a win for both politics and policy. Meanwhile, Johnson was trying to position himself as a defender of democracy, but that just didn't resonate. That clear contrast is exactly what Democrats are looking for as we head into some competitive elections. Now let's see what's next on the horizon. Gava is about to get sworn in, and that brings up an important question.

Will he vote for the discharge petition regarding the Epstein files? If that petition hits 218 votes, the Congress has to release those documents without any chance for obstruction. This procedural move sidesteps the control of the leadership, forcing that floor vote whether Johnson likes it or not. If GAVA happens to provide that crucial 218th vote, then Johnson's plans will completely fall apart. All that risk and damage he forced upon himself would end up being for nothing.

The broader story here touches on accountability. Johnson tried to stretch his power too far and got caught in the act, slapped down by a federal court. That's how this system is meant to function, showing checks and balances in action. In a time where it can seem like powerful people escape any consequences,

witnessing a speaker getting publicly pushed back for overreach is actually a breath of fresh air. It serves as a reminder that the guardrails still exist, even if they get tested time and again. It proves that when you push too hard, sometimes the system pushes back. But this raises an interesting point. What led Johnson to think he could skate by with this sort of behavior to begin with?

What made him believe that refusing to seat an elected representative was an okay move? The likely answer is that the MAGA wing has been pushing boundaries for several years, facing little pushback and lost sight of where the actual lines are drawn. They kept pushing their luck,

and now they've hit a solid wall. They discovered the boundary the system won't allow them to cross. The real question now is whether they'll learn from this experience or just find new ways to try and achieve the same old goals. This case is definitely going to be a study topic in law schools, as a prime example of legislative overreach and judicial correction. It'll be cited in future voting rights cases, and Johnson's part in all this will be remembered as a tremendous abuse of authority that backfired

spectacularly. That's his legacy from this moment, plain and simple. Mike Johnson really went out on a limb with his latest political move, and it backfired spectacularly. Rather than only playing the game, he tried to twist the rules of democracy and ended up face-planted in public embarrassment and legal trouble.

When you chase after quick wins instead of sticking to the big picture principles of our Constitution, you're asking for trouble. To get right to it, Johnson thought he could manipulate congressional representation and sweep the Epstein files under the rug. He believed that with his position as Speaker, he could just ignore the voices of hundreds of thousands of people in Arizona.

But in the end, the court shut him down completely. His legal defenses crumbled, and now he's not just looking at legal embarrassment, but also a political mess to deal with. Pushing boundaries can lead to unexpected consequences, and this was a banner example of that. Johnson's gamble didn't just flop,

it flopped in front of everyone, which is the worst kind of failure. Now he has to deal with the fallout while trying to hold on to authority in a chaotic house that's already tough to manage. It'll be interesting to see how the situation with the Epstein files plays out, whether Johnson can withstand this upheaval, and if the mega faction takes any lessons from this hard lesson. We're also left wondering if Congress can pull itself together, or if it's just going to spiral further into chaos. At the very least, this case shows that there are still some boundaries in place.

They might get tested time and again, but they're holding strong. When someone like Johnson tries to bulldoze right through them, the system sometimes fights back. That's a crucial point to keep in mind as we dive deeper into this unpredictable political That's a crucial point to keep in mind as we dive deeper into this unpredictable political circus that keeps surprising us all.