In Washington, President Donald Trump has recently joined the voices of many others seeking to penalize federal judges who rule against his administration. However, due to the current composition of Congress, impeachment and removal from office are highly improbable.
The clamor for federal judges’ impeachment escalated earlier this week when President Trump posted on social media that a U.S. district judge, who is supervising his administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants suspected of gang involvement, should be impeached.
This marked the first time that Trump publicly called for the impeachment of a judge. Nonetheless, his Republican allies and Elon Musk, a senior White House advisor, have been vocal for weeks in their criticism of judiciary members who have been managing the many legal challenges to the Trump administration’s policies and have ruled against them.
Within the House of Representatives, a small group of staunchly conservative Republican lawmakers have either introduced or endorsed resolutions to impeach four such judges. While it is doubtful that these efforts will garner enough support to result in the judges’ removal from office, they have reignited the debate about impeachment and the high standard required for removal due to high crimes and misdemeanors.
In a post on social media Tuesday, the president called for U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s impeachment, stating without naming him directly that “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt continued the assault on Boasberg and other judges who have issued preliminary rulings against the Trump administration. During a press briefing, she told reporters, “The judges in this country are acting erroneously. We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States. They are clearly attempting to slow-walk this administration’s agenda, which is unacceptable.”
Leavitt asserted that the president “has made it clear that he believes this judge in this case should be impeached.” She noted that while the White House will adhere to judicial orders and appeal unfavorable rulings, as it has done so far, she accused the judges of undermining the will of the American people who voted for President Trump.
On Tuesday, following President Trump’s social media post, freshman Rep. Brandon Gill, a Republican from Texas, filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg. He alleged on social media that Boasberg “is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office.” Five other Republicans have signed onto the impeachment articles as co-sponsors.
Impeachment resolutions have also been proposed against U.S. District Judges Paul Engelmayer, John Bates, and Amir Ali. Last month, GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia announced his intention to draft impeachment articles against U.S. District Judge John McConnell, although these do not appear to have been filed yet.
The impeachment process, according to the Constitution, is based on “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It is highly unlikely that any of the judges who are the targets of impeachment resolutions meet this stringent criterion.
Similar to presidential impeachments, the power to impeach, convict, and remove judges falls to Congress. While the House of Representatives holds the power of impeachment, the Senate, as stipulated by the Constitution, is responsible for conducting a trial to determine if impeached officials are guilty and should be removed from their positions.
After legislators introduce articles of impeachment in the House, a simple majority must adopt the articles for impeachment to proceed. The House then sends the impeachment articles to the Senate, which, according to the Constitution, has the “sole Power” to conduct a trial that could result in conviction and removal from office.
However, the Senate has set a high bar for conviction, requiring a two-thirds majority. Although Republicans hold a majority in the upper chamber with 53 seats, this falls short of the 67 senators needed to find an official guilty and remove them from office.
How congressional leaders will proceed remains to be seen. White House deputy chief of staff James Blair told Politico that “it’ll be up to the speaker” to determine what can pass and whether to pursue impeachment proceedings. He noted that the president is merely “highlighting a critical issue.”
“I think the president is right, we should impeach activist, partisan judges,” Blair stated. “The question is, will that happen?”
House Speaker Mike Johnson would have several options if lawmakers decide to force a vote with a privileged resolution. These include bringing the impeachment articles up for a risky vote, setting up a vote to table the measure, or referring it to a committee.
An impeachment resolution would be referred to the House Judiciary Committee for an investigation, where hearings would likely be held before advancing the impeachment articles to the full chamber. The panel’s chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, informed CNN on Wednesday that for House Republicans and the Judiciary Committee, “all options are still on the table.”
Impeachment proceedings would likely consume valuable time and attention that congressional Republicans hope to reserve for a massive budget package that would allow the president to implement much of his agenda.
When asked if an impeachment trial could hinder the White House’s agenda, Blair expressed doubt that “a bunch of floor time will be spent on something if they strongly feel like they can’t get the votes.”
In the past, impeachment has been used against judges sparingly. Only 14 federal judges and one Supreme Court justice have ever been impeached by the House. Of these, eight were convicted by the Senate and removed from office, according to the Federal Judicial Center.
Republicans have introduced impeachment resolutions against four judges on the U.S. district courts after they issued preliminary decisions against the Trump administration. These include Paul Engelmayer, Amir Ali, John Bates, and James Boasberg.
In response to President Trump’s call for Boasberg’s impeachment, Chief Justice John Roberts, the head of the federal judiciary, issued a rare rebuttal.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” the chief justice stated.
While Roberts’ statement was rare, it is not the first time he has spoken out in response to contentious comments from politicians. In March 2020, he denounced remarks from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, made outside the Supreme Court as “inappropriate” and “dangerous.”
“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” Roberts said in the statement released by the Supreme Court.
In 2018, he countered comments made by President Trump during his first term about a judge who ruled against one of his asylum policies. The president referred to the judge as an “Obama judge.”
The U.S. doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” he stated.
