Search Articles
WASHINGTON (CN) — Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare response to political commentary about judicial rulings on Tuesday, chastising President Donald Trump’s calls to impeach a federal judge who ruled against him.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” the George W. Bush appointee said in a statement provided by the court. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
Earlier in the day, Trump called U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington — crooked and pressed for his impeachment in a Truth Social post.
“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President,” Trump wrote.
Trump’s post came after Boasberg ordered a two-week halt to the removal of Venezuelan migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemy Act. The statute had only been used three times in the nation’s history, during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II — President Franklin Roosevelt infamously ordered the internment of Japanese Americans under the statute — and has never been used during peacetime.
Trump used the law to deport Venezuelan migrants accused of belonging to the transnational gang Tren de Aragua.
Trump does not have the authority to remove a federal judge; that power, much like presidential impeachment, lies with Congress.
Republicans, though, have been skeptical so far of using impeachment to punish jurists who issue rulings the White House does not like. And while some top lawmakers spoke approvingly of Trump’s criticisms Monday, there have been few indications they would initiate impeachment proceedings.
“TRUMP IS RIGHT TO CONDEMN ROGUE JUDGES,” wrote California Representative Darrell Issa, chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s subpanel on federal courts, in a post on X. “The Resistance now wears robes.”
But Issa’s strongly worded statement did not explicitly endorse judicial impeachments. And the California congressman has previously poured cold water on the idea that judges who rule against the president’s agenda should be removed from their posts.
Speaking to Courthouse News last month, Issa said he personally had a “high standard” for impeachment and the “high crimes and misdemeanors” requirement laid out in the Constitution. The lawmaker acknowledged that impeachment was a tool available to Congress, but added that it could not be applied to “maladministration” by federal judges.
“Judges make these decisions,” he said at the time. “It might be maladministration, it might be wrong and inappropriate — it might even be done for purely political reasons by judges who have a political lean. But it falls short of high crimes, misdemeanors or this question of good behavior.”
A spokesperson for Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, told Courthouse News Monday that “everything is on the table” for the legal affairs panel.
Jordan made a similar comment to Courthouse News on Capitol Hill last month, but refused at the time to elaborate on whether the Judiciary Committee would take up an impeachment inquiry against any federal judges.
Boasberg isn’t the first judge to face the threat of an ouster from lawmakers. Tennessee Representative Andy Ogles has filed a handful of impeachment articles against jurists who in recent weeks have blocked White House orders on issues such as birthright citizenship and foreign aid.
Much like impeaching a president, removing a federal judge would first require the House to approve articles of impeachment on a simple majority vote. The measure would then go to the Senate, which would decide whether to convict the accused jurist.
Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said over the weekend that his panel was “taking action” after the D.C. court’s deportation ruling. But his office has declined to say what the committee’s response might be, and Senate Republicans have not shown much appetite for judicial impeachments.
Trump’s attack on Boasberg came after a Monday hearing where the judge questioned whether the administration violated a weekend order to immediately “turn around and return to the United States” any flights deporting Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemy Act.
According to flight tracker site FlightAware, two flights carrying 137 migrants took off from Texas in the middle of an emergency hearing on Saturday.
The episode reignited claims that the Trump administration was violating judicial orders. The administration disputes these claims, but court watchers say the moment calls for extraordinary action to shore up courts’ authority.
“At this critical juncture, efforts to bolster the judiciary can’t just be talk,” Gabe Roth, executive director at Fix the Court, said in a statement. “The Chief Justice should be working with Congress to excise the U.S. Marshals Service, which carries out court orders, from under the thumb of the executive; to increase spending for judicial security in light of a barrage of not just impeachment threats but violent threats; and to authorize mandatory safety training for every federal judge.”
The Supreme Court is considering whether Trump can end birthright citizenship for some children of migrants. Trump asked the justices to limit nationwide pauses on the policy from three federal judges.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.socialSubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.