In recent weeks, a growing chorus of voices, including President Donald Trump and several conservative lawmakers, has called for the impeachment of federal judges accused of overstepping their constitutional bounds. The criticism centers on rulings perceived as flagrant abuses of judicial power, such as U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s order on March 15, 2025, to halt Trump’s deportation flights targeting alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Critics argue that such decisions reflect a judiciary unmoored from its constitutional role, effectively legislating from the bench and undermining the executive and legislative branches. They assert that impeachment, as outlined in Article I of the Constitution, is the rightful remedy Congress possesses to check this “despicable disregard” for constitutional limits, especially when judges appear to prioritize political agendas over legal fidelity.
 

On March 18, 2025, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare statement rebuking these calls, declaring that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision” and emphasizing the appellate review process as the proper avenue for redress. This admonishment has been met with fierce backlash from those who view it as a “pathetic” attempt to shield an increasingly rogue judiciary from accountability. Critics contend that Roberts’ stance dismisses the legislature’s explicit constitutional authority to remove judges for misbehavior—authority that extends beyond mere criminal acts to include egregious overreach or subversion of the separation of powers. They argue that his statement effectively elevates federal judges to an untouchable status, contradicting historical precedent like the 1804 impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase for partisan conduct, which established that judicial acts can indeed justify removal.
 

The controversy underscores a broader tension between the branches of government, with many seeing Roberts’ defense as a weak capitulation to judicial supremacy rather than a principled stand. Proponents of impeachment argue that the Constitution’s framers intended Congress to serve as a robust check on judicial power, particularly when judges engage in what they call “criminal” overreach—acts that, while not necessarily illegal, violate the public trust and the constitutional framework. Far from protecting judicial independence, they say Roberts’ statement undermines the rule of law by insulating judges from the consequences of their actions, leaving the legislative branch hamstrung in its duty to safeguard the Republic. As this debate intensifies, it raises critical questions about the balance of power and whether the judiciary has grown too comfortable exceeding its mandated limits without fear of reprisal.