House Republicans are increasingly setting their sights on federal judges for impeachment, primarily targeting those who have issued rulings unfavorable to the Trump administration. This move marks a significant departure from historical precedent, as impeachment has traditionally been reserved for judges accused of gross personal misconduct, financial corruption, or other severe criminal offenses.

 

Former President Donald Trump has actively encouraged the effort, calling for judicial impeachments, though some Republican lawmakers remain hesitant. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts weighed in on Tuesday, issuing a rare statement to push back against the movement. "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts stated. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

WH Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirms that 67% of ALL national injunctions issued by local district court judges have come against President Trump.

92% of those have been from partisan Democrat-appointed judges.

We do have a constitutional crisis, and Democrat caused it. pic.twitter.com/pbgpnIlcLR

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 19, 2025

 

House Republicans have introduced or threatened impeachment articles against more than six federal district court judges who have ruled against Trump in various cases. While Republican leaders in the House have not dismissed the idea of moving forward with impeachment votes, their narrow two-seat majority—along with some Republican lawmakers' reluctance—makes such votes difficult to pass. Removing any of these judges would require all Senate Republicans and at least 14 Democrats to vote for conviction, a nearly impossible hurdle.

 

 

Among the judges being targeted is Chief Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia, who angered Trump by ordering a plane deporting about 250 alleged Venezuelan gang members to turn around as he reviewed the administration's application of the Alien Enemies Act of 1789. Trump lashed out on Truth Social, saying, "This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" In response, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) introduced articles of impeachment the same day, with backing from five Republican co-sponsors.

 

Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York also faces impeachment threats after ruling last month to block the Department of Justice from accessing Department of Treasury records containing sensitive personal data. Reps. Derrick Van Orden (R-Ariz.) and Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) introduced impeachment articles against Engelmayer, with Crane's measure garnering support from seven Republican co-sponsors.

 

Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia drew the ire of Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) after ordering the Trump administration to restore health agency websites that had been shut down under an executive order targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. Ogles introduced impeachment articles, accusing Bates of promoting "socially divisive and destructive LGBTQI+ content" and claiming his conduct was "so utterly lacking in intellectual honesty and basic integrity that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

Judge Amir Ali, also of the District of Columbia, ruled that Trump did not have "unbounded power" to withhold foreign aid appropriated by Congress and ordered the administration to resume frozen aid payments. Ogles introduced impeachment articles against Ali, denouncing the ruling as "arbitrary and capricious" and echoing similar claims of lacking integrity.

 

Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island has been targeted for impeachment after blocking an Office of Management and Budget order that temporarily froze all federal grants, loans, and financial assistance programs. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) recently announced his intention to introduce impeachment articles against McConnell.

 

Judge Adam Abelson of the District of Maryland is also facing scrutiny after issuing a ruling last month blocking Trump's executive order to eliminate all federal funding for DEI-related programs. Eli Crane hinted at impeaching Abelson in a post on X, an idea that gained traction after receiving support from Trump confidante Elon Musk.

 

Finally, Judge Theodore Chuang, also of the District of Maryland, is under fire for ruling that the Trump administration likely violated the Constitution by shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development. Ogles, in a post on X, simply wrote: "Impeach him!"

 

Despite the mounting pressure from Trump allies, the likelihood of these impeachment efforts succeeding remains low. With strong institutional resistance from the judicial branch and a divided Congress, removing federal judges over policy disagreements faces significant legal and political obstacles.

 

Based on a report by AXIOS  2025-03-21

 

 

Pure theatre, they haven’t got the votes, but nevertheless yet one more example of Trump’s ambition to dispense with the separation of powers and subjugate the judiciary to the will of the Presidency.

 

Chief Justice Roberts called it right, if Trump is not happy with a court ruling he has recourse to the appeals process.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pure theatre, they haven’t got the votes, but nevertheless yet one more example of Trump’s ambition to dispense with the separation of powers and subjugate the judiciary to the will of the Presidency.

 

Chief Justice Roberts called it right, if Trump is not happy with a court ruling he has recourse to the appeals process.

 

 

i think you are mistaken. Normally, the lower courts and judges are not supposed to be able to have a hearing or make a ruling about something that is deemed national security or the protection of the US itself. That is something congress does. These judges are taking cases against the WH for getting rid of illegals or stopping their funding on programs that hurt the US taxpayers. There is really no precedent for this to happen and the judges are not supposed to be able to do these things. But the DEMS have been using the courts to file any motions against the WH actions they deem are not what they want and using their own DEM judges to ruule against the WH actions. Might as well say the Judges can rule on cases about defending an invasion. Because an invasion is really what was occuring with the millions of illegals entering the US. 

Looks like the judges may be in regret

52 minutes ago, thesetat said:

i think you are mistaken. Normally, the lower courts and judges are not supposed to be able to have a hearing or make a ruling about something that is deemed national security or the protection of the US itself. That is something congress does. These judges are taking cases against the WH for getting rid of illegals or stopping their funding on programs that hurt the US taxpayers. There is really no precedent for this to happen and the judges are not supposed to be able to do these things. But the DEMS have been using the courts to file any motions against the WH actions they deem are not what they want and using their own DEM judges to ruule against the WH actions. Might as well say the Judges can rule on cases about defending an invasion. Because an invasion is really what was occuring with the millions of illegals entering the US. 

These judges are judging that orders from the administration may be illegal. Hence the orders are put on hold pending further review.

Well done GOP.

 

There is no place in the judiciary for politically biased rulings by politically biased judges.

 

They need to be held accountable. This cannot be allowed to continue. 

 

 

It seems that a lot of these judges are making decisions based on personal political views, rather that seeking justice for the people.  They should probably face some sort of consequences.

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

These judges are judging that orders from the administration may be illegal.

 

Are they?  Or do they simply not like them personally and are therefore trying to stop them, without actually knowing if they are illegal or not?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pure theatre, they haven’t got the votes, but nevertheless yet one more example of Trump’s ambition to dispense with the separation of powers and subjugate the judiciary to the will of the Presidency.

Separation of power swings both ways. There's no room IMHO for activists judges with an obvious political agenda. 

The system is broken. But trying to impeach these judges will likely be an exercise in futility. Good political theatre, perhaps. 

 

In any event, anyone who knows anything about judges and the judicial system must surely know how it all works.  Not everything is black and white, and judges are often "swimming in a sea of grey."  In other words, they have to weigh evidence to determine questions law.  They consider various factors, and, depending on how they weigh the evidence, the outcome can vary. No one factor exists in a vacuum.

 

Once upon a time, I used to write for federal appeals judges.  However the judge wanted a case to turn out, I could make it turn out that way.  It isn't rocket science.

 

And that's why we have a system of judicial review.  It all ends with the Supreme Court.  Will they do the right thing? 

 

Of course, there's always the political process and congress, but that seems to be broken, too, much of the time. 

The judge in question is a Left Wing activist in the position of a judge. His wife works with the Democrat-Marxist party. His judgment seems clearly to be influenced by his Leftist ideology, not about what is right or wrong or what is best for the population, in my opinion. Why would a judge support and want to release some of the worst of the worst criminals in the world otherwise?

2 minutes ago, renaissanc said:

The judge in question is a Left Wing activist in the position of a judge. His wife works with the Democrat-Marxist party. His judgment seems clearly to be influenced by his Leftist ideology, not about what is right or wrong or what is best for the population, in my opinion. Why would a judge support and want to release some of the worst of the worst criminals in the world otherwise?

Assume all that's true.  What's the remedy? What's the remedy that will actually work?  

2 hours ago, thesetat said:

i think you are mistaken. Normally, the lower courts and judges are not supposed to be able to have a hearing or make a ruling about something that is deemed national security or the protection of the US itself. That is something congress does. These judges are taking cases against the WH for getting rid of illegals or stopping their funding on programs that hurt the US taxpayers. There is really no precedent for this to happen and the judges are not supposed to be able to do these things. But the DEMS have been using the courts to file any motions against the WH actions they deem are not what they want and using their own DEM judges to ruule against the WH actions. Might as well say the Judges can rule on cases about defending an invasion. Because an invasion is really what was occuring with the millions of illegals entering the US. 

Have you got a link to back your assertion?

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

These judges are judging that orders from the administration may be illegal. Hence the orders are put on hold pending further review.

It’s what the appellate courts are for.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Well done GOP.

 

There is no place in the judiciary for politically biased rulings by politically biased judges.

 

They need to be held accountable. This cannot be allowed to continue. 

 

 

Jonny, the GOP gobbing off and the GOP doing something are two different things.

 

The rest of your post is simply ill informed nonsense.

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

It seems that a lot of these judges are making decisions based on personal political views, rather that seeking justice for the people.  They should probably face some sort of consequences.

Do you agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the correct course of action is for the Administration to appeal rulings the Administration doesn’t agree with?

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/18/politics/john-roberts-donald-trump-impeachment/index.html

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny, the GOP go bing off and the GOP doing something are two different things.

 

Assuming there is a rational point buried somewhere in that post, could you rewrite it for the English speakers please?

 

 

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Assuming there is a rational point buried somewhere in that post, could you rewrite it for the English speakers please?

 

 

Autospell isn’t my best mate. Corrected to help you get to grips with the fact the GOP stating they are doing something and actually doing something are not the same thing.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Jonny, the GOP gobbing off and the GOP doing something are two different things.

 

Are you implying they will not actually do anything?

 

Trump's actions so far indicate he is going to do exactly what he said he was going to do. In some cases, to the extreme. 

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Are you implying they will not actually do anything?

 

Trump's actions so far indicate he is going to do exactly what he said he was going to do. In some cases, to the extreme. 

No, I’m pointing out the obvious flaw in your post:

 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Well done GOP.

 

There is no place in the judiciary for politically biased rulings by politically biased judges.

 

They need to be held accountable. This cannot be allowed to continue. 

 

 

 

“Well done GOP?”

 

They’ve said they are going to impeach judges, they’ve done no such thing, it’s all theatre for dullards.
 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, I’m pointing out the obvious flaw in your post:

 

 

“Well done GOP?”

 

They’ve said they are going to impeach judges, they’ve done no such thing, it’s all theatre for dullards.
 

 

 

Well done GOP for confirming they will address the issue. 

 

I don't believe anyone claimed it was already complete. But feel free to quote anyone who did. 

I dont think these Judges should be impeached. I beleive disqualification is the remedy. They are clearly biased, look at this garbage from Beryl Howell after DENYING another lawfare attempt.

 

“I am very offended by how DOGE has operated at the institute and treated American citizens trying to do a job that they were statutorily tasked to do at the institute,” Howell said. “But that concern about how this has gone down is not one that can sway me in my consideration of the factors for a [temporary restraining order], which is an emergency relief that is extraordinary.”  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5204061-federal-judge-blocks-usip-takeover/

Emphasis mine.

I would argue in light of her record, and those remarks, that she be taken off the wheel for new cases against the government.

 

Who would argue against that except someone who doesnt want impartiality?

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Well done GOP for confirming they will address the issue. 

 

I don't believe anyone claimed it was already complete. But feel free to quote anyone who did. 

But Jonny, that’s the point, they can’t impeach these judges, they don’t have the votes to do.

 

If you had the most basic grasp of the actual process you would understand, the correct course of action is for the executive to appeal the rulings.

 

Chief Justice Roberts has made that point, link provided above.

3 hours ago, thesetat said:

i think you are mistaken. Normally, the lower courts and judges are not supposed to be able to have a hearing or make a ruling about something that is deemed national security or the protection of the US itself. That is something congress does. These judges are taking cases against the WH for getting rid of illegals or stopping their funding on programs that hurt the US taxpayers. There is really no precedent for this to happen and the judges are not supposed to be able to do these things. But the DEMS have been using the courts to file any motions against the WH actions they deem are not what they want and using their own DEM judges to ruule against the WH actions. Might as well say the Judges can rule on cases about defending an invasion. Because an invasion is really what was occuring with the millions of illegals entering the US. 

 

Whoah. You made alot of assumptions.

1. U.S. Federal District Courts most certainly are allowed to deal with  cases involving  national security. Where else do you expect US cases to be heard and/or tried?

 

Within limits set by Congress and the Constitution, district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal civil and criminal cases. 

Criminal cases involve an allegation by the government that an individual or entity violated the criminal laws of the United States.  

Civil cases arise from disputes involving the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. They also can be brought in district court if the parties are citizens of different states or countries and the amount in controversy exceeds a certain amount of money. 

 

2. It is difficult to impeach a Federal judge and that was intentional. It was to prevent political interference, which is what we see the Trump group trying to do. The bar setting is high to impeach a judge and there must be demonstrable corruption. To date, judicial  impeachments have been few and restricted to inappropriate behavior such as business dealing conflicts of interest.

 

The judge being targeted has a sterling reputation and  has never before been accused of political bias or corruption. The man is  Chief Judge of the District Court.  He received a B.A., magna cum laude, in History in 1985 from Yale College, an M.A. in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990.  This is no hick from the sticks who made his bones  processing real estate transactions or chasing  car crashes.

 

Go after a man of  a solid reputation and  who is respected by his peers and you will open a can of whoop. The House doesn't have the votes, nor the Senate to impeach. Nor would the  SCOTUS, aside from   Justices Thomas and ALito  go along with it. 

 

Keep pushing this agenda and it will result in the basis to impeach President Trump .

 

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Separation of power swings both ways. There's no room IMHO for activists judges with an obvious political agenda. 

Judges like Thomas and Alito? Tell me more.

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But Jonny, that’s the point, they can’t impeach these judges, they don’t have the votes to do.

 

If you had the most basic grasp of the actual process you would understand, the correct course of action is for the executive to appeal the rulings.

 

Chief Justice Roberts has made that point, link provided above.

 

I said they will address the issue.

 

It appears step 1 is to put the issue firmly in the media spotlight and get the public/the media talking about it. As your plethora of posts on this thread indicate, that is working.

 

Thanks for helping out.  

The issue will end up in the Supreme Court, where it belongs.  Whether or not they do anything about it all that would satisfy the Republicans remains to be seen.

 

In any event, aside from those who maintain that this is all a "constitutional crisis," the country has been through this type of situation before.  Several times.  And here we are.  Still functioning. 

3 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Whoah. You made alot of assumptions.

1. U.S. Federal District Courts most certainly are allowed to deal with  cases involving  national security. Where else do you expect US cases to be heard and/or tried?

 

Within limits set by Congress and the Constitution, district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal civil and criminal cases. 

Criminal cases involve an allegation by the government that an individual or entity violated the criminal laws of the United States.  

Civil cases arise from disputes involving the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties. They also can be brought in district court if the parties are citizens of different states or countries and the amount in controversy exceeds a certain amount of money. 

 

2. It is difficult to impeach a Federal judge and that was intentional. It was to prevent political interference, which is what we see the Trump group trying to do. The bar setting is high to impeach a judge and there must be demonstrable corruption. To date, judicial  impeachments have been few and restricted to inappropriate behavior such as business dealing conflicts of interest.

 

The judge being targeted has a sterling reputation and  has never before been accused of political bias or corruption. The man is  Chief Judge of the District Court.  He received a B.A., magna cum laude, in History in 1985 from Yale College, an M.A. in Modern European History from Oxford University in 1986 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990.  This is no hick from the sticks who made his bones  processing real estate transactions or chasing  car crashes.

 

Go after a man of  a solid reputation and  who is respected by his peers and you will open a can of whoop. The House doesn't have the votes, nor the Senate to impeach. Nor would the  SCOTUS, aside from   Justices Thomas and ALito  go along with it. 

 

Keep pushing this agenda and it will result in the basis to impeach President Trump .

 

Nice to see someone can find a source instead of an assumption.

Well, well a topic that brings out the right wing nut jobs in full force.  Know nothing, spout bs, blame it on 'the left', the 'marxists, the democrats.  A pity they all don't  run back to their US criminal masters and stfu in Thailand.

Excellent history/US governing  lesson. Why are judges (some not all) appointed (by the Executive Branch) for life after vetting and a vote for confirmation (by the Legislative Branch)? Exactly ... so that, in the ideal they are removed from political pressure by the Executive, the legislative Branches, indeed from the emotionally motivated citizenry at times. They have the responsibility of ruling on the application of the law alone. In the case of the Supreme Court, ruling only on cases involving the US Constitution (not on guilt or innocence in that regard).