The Justice Department has asked the nation's U.S. Attorneys to forward what it characterizes as the "most egregious examples" of federal judges acting in ways that impede the current administration's policies, according to a department statement made public in response to reporting on the request. The appeal is aimed at compiling material that could inform congressional action under its constitutional oversight role, including potential impeachment referrals.
Department leaders, including Attorney General Pam Bondi - who was appointed by President Donald Trump - made the disclosure as part of a statement saying the administration faces what it described as "unprecedented judicial activism from rogue judges who care more about making a name for themselves than acting as impartial arbiters of the law." The Justice Department indicated it solicited examples of judicial obstruction from the 93 U.S. Attorney Offices to assist Congress with efforts to rein in judges it says are violating their oaths.
The request follows a report that an official recently reached out to all 93 U.S. Attorneys seeking such examples. The department framed the collection of instances as a tool to help the legislative branch exercise its oversight responsibilities over the judicial branch, as established in the U.S. Constitution. That constitutional framework sets out impeachment as the process by which the House of Representatives can bring charges and the Senate can hold a trial to determine whether an official - including a federal judge - should be removed for "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Officials close to the administration have publicly criticized judges who handed down decisions blocking central elements of the president's agenda, including aspects of his immigration policy. At the same time, critics of the president contend the initiative is part of an effort to weaken the judiciary, which is coequal to the executive branch under the constitutional design.
The Justice Department has previously filed at least two complaints alleging judicial misconduct against judges presiding over cases involving the administration's policies; those complaints were later dismissed. One judge singled out in ongoing political debate is Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., who has been the subject of at least two impeachment resolutions introduced by allies of the president in the House.
Those House resolutions first sought Boasberg's impeachment after he blocked the president from using wartime powers to deport Venezuelan migrants. A subsequent resolution accuses him of improperly ordering carriers not to disclose that phone records for several Republican lawmakers were sought during the investigation led by former Special Counsel Jack Smith into the former president's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Neither impeachment resolution has advanced in the House.
The administration's calls for more aggressive congressional scrutiny of judges prompted a rare public reprimand from the chief justice of the Supreme Court. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts admonished that impeachment is "not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." That rebuke followed public statements by the president last year calling for Boasberg's impeachment and describing the judge as "radical left."
At the same time, the Supreme Court's conservative majority, which the article notes stands 6-3, has issued a series of emergency rulings in the past year that have at times aligned with positions advanced by the president and his administration.
Historically, formal impeachment of federal judges by the House has been rare: only 15 judges have been impeached by the House in U.S. history, and eight were subsequently convicted by the Senate. The article also notes that the House voted twice to impeach the president during his first term when the chamber was controlled by Democrats, but the Senate failed on both occasions to reach the two-thirds majority required to convict.
Context and implications
The Justice Department's solicitation of examples from U.S. Attorneys is a procedural step designed to compile items that could be presented to Congress for consideration. The move has intensified debate over the proper bounds of executive branch interaction with the judicial branch and highlights tensions between efforts to advance administration policy and judicial checks on those efforts.
As the administration presses Congress to examine alleged judicial overreach, the procedural course for any effort to remove a federal judge would run through the Constitutionally prescribed impeachment process, beginning in the House and, if approved, proceeding to a Senate trial.