Impeaching Judges Over Politics Will Damage Courts, Both Parties

The House speaker expressed support recently for efforts to impeach two judges whose rulings have angered the Trump administration. Should this occur, it would dramatically lower the bar to impeaching a judge, which legislators urging this action may come to regret. Control of the House could change as soon as next year and judges whose rulings lawmakers agree with could find themselves in the crosshairs of impeachment proceedings simply for doing their job.

Speaker Mike Johnson’s comments are a reversal from his previous statements that impeachment of judges was an “extreme measure” that should not be invoked based on disagreement with a judge’s ruling in a case. But on Jan. 21, he changed course, saying that “extreme times call for extreme measures.”

If articles of impeachment against Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia and Judge Deborah Boardman of the US District Court for the District of Maryland are brought to the floor of the House for a vote and approved, it would constitute a drastic departure from the over two hundred year practice that judges aren’t impeached based on disagreement with rulings they made in a particular case.

The Constitution has several clauses that define the power to impeach judges and other civil officers of the United States. Article 1, section 2 provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of impeachment” and Article 1, section 3 gives the Senate exclusive power to try all impeachments brought by the House, with a two-thirds vote required to convict.

Article II, section 4 of the Constitution authorizes the impeachment and removal from office of the president, vice president, and other “civil officers” of the United States only for serious misconduct such as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

From the founding of our country 250 years ago until now, no federal judge has ever been impeached and removed from office based on a ruling they made in a case.

And the eight judges who have been impeached and removed from office following trial in the Senate all committed egregious wrongs or were unable to fulfill their duties, justifying their removal from office: mental instability (Judge John Pickering, 1804); refusal to hold court and fighting for the Confederacy against the US (Judge West Humphreys, 1862); improper business relations with litigants (Judge Robert Archbald, 1913); practicing law while serving as a judge and favoritism in appointment of bankruptcy receivers (Judge Halsted Ritter, 1936); conviction for income tax evasion (Judge Harry Claiborne, 1986); perjury when testifying before a grand jury (Judge Walter Nixon, 1989); perjury and soliciting a bribe (Judge Alcee Hastings, 1989); and accepting bribes and false statements while under oath (Judge G. Thomas Porteous, 2010).

As Chief Justice John Roberts stated publicly in March 2025, “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” This precedent was established in 1805 when Justice Samuel Chase was impeached and tried at the urging of President Thomas Jefferson for what was widely viewed as partisan reasons. Several Jeffersonian Republicans joined the Federalists in successfully voting to acquit Chase.

The trial sets the precedent for protecting the federal judiciary from congressional interference, and as Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in a book on the impeachment, “by assuring that impeachment would not be used in the future as a method to remove members of the Supreme Court for their judicial opinions, it helped to safeguard the independence of that body.”

The wisdom of this is clear. Judges are required to rule on cases that are assigned to them. Frequently, they must resolve highly controversial issues about which there is widespread public disagreement. Rulings that anger or upset some elected officials and members of the public are unavoidable. Our legal system has well-established ways to address an erroneous ruling by a trial judge—appeal to the court of appeals or even the US Supreme Court.

There is no justifiable reason to doubt the effectiveness of these safeguards, as evidenced by the numerous recent examples of federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court staying or overruling trial court orders they concluded were erroneous or unwarranted.

Lowering the bar to permit commencement of impeachment proceedings against judges—especially trial judges—based on their judicial rulings would not only be a radical departure from the historically justifiable grounds for impeachment, but it also would be extremely unwise and short sighted. It would set a clear precedent for bringing impeachment proceedings against any trial judge, appellate judge, or Supreme Court justice simply because they issued an unpopular decision.

While today it is the Trump administration and its supporters who are demanding these impeachments, that will not always be the case. If the Democratic Party takes control of the House after midterm elections, the shoe may be on the other foot. Judges and justices who have ruled in controversial cases in favor of the administration may themselves be the targets of similarly unwarranted impeachment proceedings. That would be an enormous disservice to the American public, judicial independence, and the rule of law.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Paul Grimm is a retired district judge for the US District Court for the District of Maryland.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines