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

gavel on top of a US flag
a judge's gavel on top of a flag
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

60 Former DOJ Attorneys Oppose California Election Lawsuit

Sixty former Department of Justice attorneys from both Democratic and Republican administrations are urging a federal appeals court to reject the Justice Department's last-minute intervention in California's election. They argue that the intervention violates longstanding department policies designed to prevent election interference. The former officials cite guidelines such as Justice Manual Section 9-85.500, which advises against overt investigative or prosecutorial steps near an election, and the department's non-interference policy, which seeks to avoid actions that could affect election outcomes or integrity.

In an amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and Complex Appellate Litigation Group LLP, the former officials argue that DOJ is taking the unusual step of seeking election-related relief just days before the midterm election, contrary to department policies that discourage such actions near Election Day. They say these policies aim to prevent election interference, discourage voter participation, or disrupt election administration. The brief cites United States v. Cohen, 152 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1998), where courts recognized the importance of avoiding last-minute changes to election procedures. The amici also cite Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006), in which the Supreme Court cautioned against altering election rules close to an election, as such changes can cause confusion and undermine public confidence in the electoral process.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection
The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Law Was Supposed to Be a Shield. I Found the Bars.

I used to believe that learning the law meant learning the architecture of protection.

I believed statutes existed because someone, somewhere, had anticipated injustice and decided certain lines should never be crossed. I believed due process meant power could not simply declare itself correct. I believed whistleblower protections, grievance procedures, public-records laws, administrative review and courts formed a structure designed to restrain institutional misconduct.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Christa Pike

Christa Pike in an undated photo.

(Tennessee Department of Correction/ZUMA Press/TNS)

How death penalty opponents share the blame for botched executions

“Botched” is a perfectly fine word for golf, cooking, or home repair. It seems inadequate for the taking of a life, even the life of Christa Pike, a heinous murderer.

In 1996, a jury found Pike guilty of the torture and murder of her Jobs Corps classmate, Colleen Slemmer. Pike was sentenced to death. In the 30 years since, her case has gone through at least seven major rounds of appeal and judicial review, including four petitions to the Supreme Court. All were rejected. This doesn’t even include the many more attempts to reopen or reverse her sentence that went nowhere. She is guilty, lawfully and rightly convicted.

Keep ReadingShow less