Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress Bill Spotlight: Impeaching Judges Who Rule Against Trump

News

Close up of a judge hammering a gavel
Chris Collins/Getty Images

The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.

Federal judges have ruled against Trump on issues including immigrant deportations, transgender healthcare information, and Elon Musk’s DOGE. Should they be impeached?


Context: The News

In March, President Donald Trump ordered the deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Trump did so by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 for only the fourth time in American history—and the first time outside of an official war.

But after a federal judge ordered a temporary restraining order of the deportation flights, Trump called for an unusual remedy. “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge [is] a troublemaker and agitator,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Not long after Trump’s post, a Republican House member introduced an impeachment resolution for the judge.

That’s not the only one. By The Fulcrum ’s count, less than 100 days into the presidency, House Republicans have already introduced resolutions to impeach six different judges who ruled against Trump administration policies.

This marks a fundamentally new approach. For comparison, during the last time when Trump was president and Republicans controlled the House, in 2017-18, House Republicans introduced zero judicial impeachment resolutions —even though plenty of judges ruled against Trump during those years too.

Which Judges?

The Fulcrum has counted six judicial impeachment resolutions introduced in 2025 so far. Here’s a short summary for each judge.

Judge: James Boasberg, D.C. District Court

  • Nominated by: Both parties. Originally nominated for his first judicial position by Republican George W. Bush, Boasberg was nominated to his current position by Democrat Barack Obama.
  • Judge’s decision: Halting deportation flights for alleged Venezuelan gang members. (Although the administration has since acknowledged wrongly deporting at least one person.)
  • House Republicans filing impeachment: Reps. Brandon Gill (R-TX26) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ5)
  • Cosponsors: 22 Republicans for the Gill proposal, six Republicans for the Biggs proposal.
  • What they say: “We will not stand by as radical activist Judge James Boasberg tramples on the Constitution out of political spite for the president,” Rep. Gill said in a press release. “The American people gave us a mandate to get criminal illegal aliens out of our country, and that’s exactly what we intend to do.”
  • Current status of legal case: An appeals court affirmed Boasberg’s decision by 2-1. The two majority judges were Karen Henderson, nominated by Republican George H.W. Bush, and Patricia Millett, appointed by Democrat Barack Obama. The dissenter was Justin Walker, who was appointed by Trump himself. The government is now appealing to the Supreme Court.

Judge: John Bates, D.C. District Court

  • Nominated by: George W. Bush, Republican
  • Judge’s decision: Ordering restoration of thousands of shuttered government health webpages, which had removed content on everything from vaccinations to transgender healthcare.
  • House Republican filing impeachment: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5)
  • Cosponsors: One Republican
  • What they say: “Requiring taxpayer funds to disseminate information endorsing the castration of children is repugnant,” Rep. Ogles said in a press release. “The continued socialization of this grave moral evil necessitates immediate congressional action against those promoting it… It is unacceptable for rogue judges to implicate taxpayers in woke LGBTQ propaganda and the irreversible destruction of children’s bodies.”
  • Current status: The government has appealed the decision.

Judge: Paul Engelmayer, New York District Court

Judge: Amir Ali, D.C. District Court

  • Nominated by: Joe Biden, Democrat
  • Judge’s decision: Requiring USAID and the Department of State to pay foreign aid organizations for $2 billion worth of work they’d already performed under the Biden administration or earliest days of Trump, but which the Trump administration has opposed.
  • House Republican filing impeachment: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5)
  • Cosponsors: Two Republicans
  • What they say: “Amir Ali is a woke political activist whose career has been built on attacking police, American culture, and accusing President Trump,” Rep. Ogles posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Impeaching him is a no-brainer.”
  • Current status of legal case: The Supreme Court upheld Ali’s decision by 5-4. Conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts sided with the court’s three usual liberals.

Judge: John James McConnell, Rhode Island District Court

  • Nominated by: Barack Obama, Democrat
  • Judge’s decision: Blocking an OMB (Office of Management and Budget) memo that would freeze most federal grants.
  • House Republican filing impeachment: Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA9)
  • Cosponsors: Nine Republicans
  • What they say: “Judge McConnell… is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people,” Rep. Clyde told Fox News Digital. “Judge McConnell’s actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment."
  • Current status of legal case: An appeals court upheld the decision by 3-0. All three judges were nominated by Democrats: David Barron by Obama, plus Lara Montecalvo and Julie Rikelman by Biden.

Judge: Theodore Chuang, Maryland District Court

  • Nominated by: Barack Obama, Democrat
  • Judge’s decision: Reinstating fired USAID employees and ruling USAID’s attempted shutdown as likely unconstitutional.
  • House Republican filing impeachment: Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN5)
  • Cosponsors: One Republican
  • What they say: “Chuang’s latest stunt…is absurd. His deep Democrat ties, aligned with their woke pro-bureaucrat agenda, scream conflict of interest. He’s abusing his robe to thwart the people’s will,” Rep. Ogles posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Congress must act.”
  • Current status of legal case: An appeals court stayed Chuang’s decision, essentially overturning it. Almost immediately after, the Department of State promptly officially shuttered USAID.

Context: Impeaching Judges

The House can impeach federal judges, prompting a Senate trial, which can convict and remove them from office, but it’s extremely rare. Throughout U.S. history, the House has impeached only 15 judges or justices, averaging not even once per decade.

Of those 15 House impeachments, eight were found guilty by the Senate and removed from office, four were found not guilty, and three resigned before their verdict came down. Virtually all of those impeachments occurred when a judge was accused of serious crimes.

For example, the House’s last judicial impeachment was a full 15 years ago: Thomas Porteous, a Louisiana lower court judge, was impeached for bribery and perjury in 2010. The Senate convicted him unanimously, removing him from office.

Even mere proposals to impeach judges or justices have been rare. For comparison, the entire 2023-24 Congress had only one judicial impeachment House resolution, from either party.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14) tried to impeach Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for bribery after ProPublica reported that Thomas had failed to report expensive gifts from people with cases before the Supreme Court. The proposal never received a vote in the Republican-controlled chamber.

What Opponents Say

Obviously, Democrats oppose current Republican impeachment attempts. However, even many Republicans remain skeptical, including both the top House and Senate leaders.

“Impeachment is an extraordinary measure. We’re looking at all the alternatives that we have to address this problem,” Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA4) told reporters.

When it comes to controversial judicial rulings, “there’s an appeals process. And, you know, I suspect that’s ultimately how this will get handled,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) echoed.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts also rebuked Trump for his calls to impeach judges. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Odds of Passage

The House can impeach with a simple majority, but the Senate requires a two-thirds majority to convict and remove someone from office. While Republicans hold majorities in both chambers, they’re far short of two-thirds in the Senate.

Republican leaders, though no fans of these particular judicial decisions, are considering other remedies instead, which may be more likely to get enacted into law. One of their favored options is the No Rogue Rulings Act, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA48), which would limit the ability of lower-court judges to issue such “nationwide” rulings in the first place.

Editorial cartoonist Chip Bok satirized this issue in a recent cartoon, depicting a judge dressed in a robe and seated at a bench, saying, “I’m a district judge…” only for the view to zoom out to the entire United States as the judge adds: “...and this is my district.”

Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.

SUGGESTIONS:

Congress Bill Spotlight: constitutional amendment letting Trump be elected to a third term

Congress Bill Spotlight: adding Donald Trump’s face to Mount Rushmore

Congress Bill Spotlight: BAD DOGE Act

Congress Bill Spotlight: Repealing Trump’s National Energy Emergency

Congress Bill Spotlight: Smithsonian Italian American Museum

Read More

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy at a press conference in August

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy Once Defended Congress’ Power of the Purse. Now He Defies It.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been one of the most vociferous defenders of President Donald Trump’s expansive use of executive authority, withholding billions of dollars in federal funding to states and dismissing protests of the White House’s boundary-pushing behavior as the gripings of “disenfranchised Democrats.”

But court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that a decade ago, as a House member, Duffy took a drastically different position on presidential power, articulating a full-throated defense of Congress’ role as a check on the president — one that resembled the very arguments made by speakers at recent anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies around the country.

Keep ReadingShow less
Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Killing suspected drug traffickers without trial undermines due process, human rights, and democracy. The war on drugs cannot be won through extrajudicial force.

Getty Images, SimpleImages

Killing Suspected Traffickers Won’t Win the War on Drugs

Life can only be taken in defense of life. That principle is as old as civilization itself, and it remains the bedrock of justice today. To kill another human being is justifiable only in imminent self‑defense or to protect the lives of innocent people. Yet the United States has recently crossed a troubling line: authorizing lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in international waters. Dozens have been killed without trial, without legal counsel, and without certainty of guilt.

This is not justice. It is punishment without due process, death without defense or judicial review. It is, in plain terms, an extrajudicial killing. And it is appalling.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA, Washington D.C., Supreme Court building and blurred American flag against blue sky.

Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. The answer may lie not only in Court reforms but in shifting power back to states, communities, and Congress.

Getty Images, TGI /Tetra Images

The Supreme Court Has a Legitimacy Problem—But Washington’s Monopoly on Power Is the Real Crisis

Americans disagree on much, but a new poll shows we agree on this: we don’t trust the Supreme Court. According to the latest Navigator survey, confidence in the Court is at rock bottom, especially among younger voters, women, and independents. Large numbers support term limits and ethical reforms. Even Republicans — the group with the most reason to cheer a conservative Court — are losing confidence in its direction.

The news media and political pundits’ natural tendency is to treat this as a story about partisan appointments or the latest scandal. But the problem goes beyond a single court or a single controversy. It reflects a deeper Constitutional breakdown: too much power has been nationalized, concentrated, and funneled into a handful of institutions that voters no longer see as accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less