Judicial Impeachments Should Be a Last Resort
'This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!'
With a Truth Social post last week, President Donald Trump added his voice to the growing chorus of Republicans and GOP-aligned pundits calling to impeach federal judges for issuing rulings blocking or pausing Trump administration policies. Members of the House of Representatives have already introduced several impeachment resolutions, and judges themselves have certainly noticed the heightened political and rhetorical attacks on the judiciary. A sitting president publicly calling for the impeachment of a judge who has ruled against him is unprecedented.
Unprecedented, but not unexpected. Considering Trump spent much of his first term complaining about 'so-called judges' and much of Biden's term complaining about 'Trump-hating judges,' it should come as no surprise that he and his allies have again gone after judges who rule against him as his second term begins.
Still, we are entering unusual and dangerous territory. Criticism of the courts is nothing new, of course—just look at Trump's immediate predecessor—but serious threats of impeachment are extremely uncommon. Acting on that threat can undermine judicial independence and the rule of law, of course, but even the threat itself can intimidate judges into doing what politicians want.
Of course, these attacks on federal judges from Trump and his allies are not happening in a vacuum. Trump has made a number of bold moves through unilateral executive action in the first few months of his second term, while lawmakers in Congress have been mostly content to sit on the sidelines. The legal authority underpinning much of that presidential activity has not always been clear, with many of Trump's actions relying on untested theories, aggressive interpretations of the law, and in some cases the reversal of existing Supreme Court precedents.
As a result of both its own aggressive actions and the dynamic of polarized politics, Trump's first administration faced an extraordinary number of lawsuits resulting in nationwide injunctions—judicial orders prohibiting a policy from being implemented—and that trend has continued thus far in his second term. It is true that incoming presidential administrations often face well-organized litigation campaigns by state governments held by the opposite party and affiliated interest groups, and that those litigants can often wrack up some quick victories in carefully chosen district courts before the lawsuits get bogged down in appeals.
Federal district judges have grown more inclined in recent years to issue broad rulings purporting to halt administration efforts to advance its policies not only in a particular case but across the country. Parties alleging that the executive is taking some action against them in violation of the law can ask the court to stay—or enjoin—that action, first temporarily as the issue is argued and perhaps permanently if the judge decides against the administration. So-called nationwide or universal injunctions go beyond the individual party in a particular case and order the administration not to do anything similar in any other case. Such sweeping injunctions have been quite controversial, and the Trump administration is pressing the appellate courts not only to agree with the executive about the merits of their policy actions but also to rein in the trial courts on the expansive remedies that they are offering plaintiffs, sometimes at very early stages of proceedings before the facts and legal issues have even been seriously vetted.
But the data indicate that the White House bears plenty of responsibility for the record number of injunctions it has faced. In his second term, the Trump administration has lost as often before Republican-appointed judges as it has before Democratic-appointed judges. In its early days, the administration is getting outlawyered and the courts are proving to be quite skeptical of the lawfulness of some of its most high-profile actions.
Federal judges hold their office during 'good behavior,' which is understood to be lifetime tenure—unless they commit impeachable offenses. Congress has the power to impeach, convict, and remove them for committing acts of 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,' a necessary check to address not only criminal behavior but also abuse of power in the judiciary. Lawmakers have exercised this power only 15 times in U.S. history, however, most recently in 2009 and 2010: One judge was charged with sexual assault, the other with accepting a bribe.
Identifying abuses of the public trust and condemning them when the officer is driven by corrupt motives is fairly straightforward. The judge who abuses his power to line his own pocket or the diplomat who abuses his power to advance the interests of a foreign adversary are unlikely to find a sympathetic hearing on the floor of the Congress if they attempt to offer justification for their actions. More difficult is the case of the officer who exercises power in a way that some find abusive but that others do not, who acts on motives that are public-spirited but who pursues goals that much of the public would reject. A judge who thinks an alien needs more due process before being deported than the administration does might be wrong on the law, but is not acting to advance their personal interests.
When there is reasonable disagreement about whether a given action is in fact an abuse of the judicial power, lawmakers should be reluctant to deploy the impeachment power. Ordinary politics consists of debates over constitutional meaning, efforts to advance favored understandings, and attempts to better effectuate them in political practice. Constitutional disagreements are hashed out through elections, judicial appointments, and litigation. Part of our normal political give-and-take is the recognition that others who hold deeply disagreeable constitutional, political, and policy views might nonetheless win elections and gain offices.
Indeed, impeachments in general should be a last resort to addressing abuses of power. While there are certainly occasions when nothing short of impeachment and removal will be adequate to remedy the problem posed by a misbehaving officer, we have more routine tools for addressing constitutional abuses. In the case of lower court judges, the first and most routine tool for addressing rulings that seem to be incorrect is to appeal that ruling to a higher court. If a judge has truly acted in a manner that is beyond the pale, then correction by an appellate court can be easily achieved. Only if a judge seems to make it a practice of engaging in such behavior should the blunt tool of impeachment become necessary. The administration seems to have little patience this time around for normal governing procedures, but litigation requires some patience as cases are argued, decided, and appealed.
Threatening the impeachment of judges when litigation is still in process and the legality of the executive actions in question is open to debate is less about correcting an abuse of power and more about eliminating checks and balances on executive actions. The long-term damage to judicial independence and the constitutional system from such a premature impeachment of judges would be immense.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Newsom denies Trump spoke to him before deploying more National Guards
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday said President Trump did not speak with him, despite deploying national military personnel to respond to Los Angeles protests. Why it matters: Trump claimed that he had spoken with the governor and criticized his handling of the rallies against Immigration and Customs Enforcement's actions. "There was no call. Not even a voicemail," Newsom said on X. "Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to." Driving the news: Trump, speaking to the media on Tuesday, said he last talked with Newsom "a day ago." "Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job," Trump said. "He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death." Reality check: California authorities have not reported any deaths during the protests. A total of 72 people have been arrested over the past weekend, with five police officers being injured, according to local media report on Monday Context: The Marines deployed to LA have not yet responded to immigration protests.


Axios
10 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."