As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we are all too familiar with U.S. Attorney General William Barr Bill BarrBarr says Ginsburg 'leaves a towering legacy' Republicans call for DOJ to prosecute Netflix executives for releasing 'Cuties' Trump doesn't offer vote of confidence for FBI director MORE’s theory of unfettered executive power.

We saw it play out when he defended the president’s actions in obstructing special counsel Robert Mueller Robert (Bob) MuellerCNN's Toobin warns McCabe is in 'perilous condition' with emboldened Trump CNN anchor rips Trump over Stone while evoking Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting The Hill's 12:30 Report: New Hampshire fallout MORE’s investigation, while also misrepresenting the conclusions of the special counsel’s investigation. We saw him try to protect the president from congressional oversight by concealing the Ukraine whistleblower complaint from Congress. And we saw it in the 18-page memo he sent to former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Rod RosensteinDOJ kept investigators from completing probe of Trump ties to Russia: report Five takeaways from final Senate Intel Russia report FBI officials hid copies of Russia probe documents fearing Trump interference: book MORE arguing that the president has “complete authority to start or stop a law enforcement proceeding.”

How much further might he try to go?

ADVERTISEMENT

We found out a few weeks ago when, according to public reports, the Department of Justice (DOJ) used the coronavirus outbreak to seek a host of new sweeping “emergency powers” from Congress that would inhibit justice, violate constitutional and civil liberties, and consistent with this administration’s prior practice – attack the rule of law. The request was stomach-turning, but not at all unpredictable.

President Trump Donald John TrumpObama calls on Senate not to fill Ginsburg's vacancy until after election Planned Parenthood: 'The fate of our rights' depends on Ginsburg replacement Progressive group to spend M in ad campaign on Supreme Court vacancy MORE and Attorney General Barr have long signaled their contempt for limited executive power, so it is not shocking that the Trump administration would use a national emergency to buck long-established legal safeguards in favor of more centralized power and political interests.

The list of requests was long and alarming.

The most chilling was the Trump administration’s proposal that Congress grant the attorney general the power to ask federal court chief judges to freeze court proceedings during national emergencies, applying to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures” in criminal and civil proceedings.

This request is alarming and could result in an individual who had only been arrested – not charged or found guilty – to be detained until a judge found that the emergency or civil disobedience had ended.

ADVERTISEMENT

In past national emergencies, we’ve seen presidents use emergency powers. And not always in the best interest of the country. Examples include the Roosevelt administration’s internment of American citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II, and Congress’ expansion of surveillance powers granted to the Bush administration following 9/11.

Especially in times of crisis, the rule of law must be maintained, and we will not allow Congress to repeat past mistakes. Stopping the spread of COVID-19 is critical, but we can do so without violating our Constitution and the civil rights of our citizens in the process. We wholeheartedly reject these proposals, and will again defend the rule of law, as the Judiciary Committee must.