Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be the nation’s foremost experts on the Constitution and the rule of law. But Chief Justice John Roberts – nominally a “conservative” jurist – displayed an apparent misunderstanding of both by rebuking President Donald Trump’s call for the impeachment of a federal judge.
The controversy began over the weekend when U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, attempted to block the Trump administration from deporting illegal aliens who are suspected members of Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational gang that is reportedly now active in 16 states. Boasberg went so far as to order the administration to turn around deportation flights that were already in the air.
President Trump responded by calling for the impeachment of Boasberg. “This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be impeached,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account. “We don’t want vicious, violent, and demented criminals, many of them deranged murderers, in our country. Make America Great Again!”
Those comments prompted Roberts to issue a rare statement rebuking the call for impeachment without naming Trump. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” the chief justice wrote.
But to reduce this situation to a matter of mere “disagreement concerning a judicial decision” does a grave injustice to the threat Boasberg’s order poses to the American constitutional system. In effect, one unelected district judge is asserting that he has the power to unilaterally overrule a duly elected president who is clearly acting within his Article II authority. It doesn’t take a legal scholar to see how dangerous that is.
As White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller pointed out during a CNN interview this week, the action that Boasberg is attempting to block is itself not “justiciable,” or subject to judicial review: “When the President is exercising his Article II powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he’s exercising his core Article II powers as Commander in Chief. This is a Title 50 authority, it’s a Commander in Chief authority.”
The president’s authority to deport foreign terror threats specifically comes from the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law which the founding generation passed to grant the president exactly the sort of powers Trump is now exercising. That law states that whenever the president “makes public proclamation” of “any invasion or predatory incursion of the United States… all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government… shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed, as alien enemies.”
President Trump issued just such a proclamation on his very first day in office, declaring a national emergency at the southern border. Along with members of Tren de Aragua and other foreign gangs, the Biden administration released more than 435,000 noncitizens with criminal convictions into the United States. Evidence has also emerged that Venezuela – where most of the migrants the administration was deporting over the weekend were from – emptied its prisons into migrant caravans on their way to the U.S.-Mexico border.
It is difficult to describe this urgent national security threat as anything other than an “invasion or predatory incursion.”
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote that impeachable offenses are those that “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He further explained that these offenses are “of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”
In other words, impeachment is a tool for addressing political misconduct rather than strictly legal or criminal wrongdoing. This highlights why impeachment is handled by Congress, not the courts – it’s about public trust and governance, not just breaking laws.
Trump is making essentially the same argument. He is not calling for Boasberg’s impeachment because he simply “disagrees” with the ruling. The president is asserting that Boasberg abused his power to further a partisan agenda, and in doing so “injured the society,” as Hamilton put it.
One can reasonably disagree with Trump’s assessment of Boasberg’s motives. But to suggest that it is somehow out of bounds for the president to call for the impeachment of a federal judge he believes has violated his oath of office would be to remove an important check on judicial power. The Founders wisely installed an unelected federal judiciary to insulate judges from political pressure, but the impeachment process was designed to ensure they were not shielded from all accountability.
Roberts’ critics have long accused him of being motivated more by a desire to maintain the Court’s image as an apolitical institution than by a desire to defend the Constitution and its separation of powers. This spat will do little to alter that reputation.
B.C. Brutus is the pen name of a writer with experience in the legislative and executive branches.
This judge was way out of line. Please note this judge’s daughter runs an organization which uses taxpayer dollars to defend illegal aliens and keep them in the Country. the funds come from USAID. Are we going to say this is not a conflict of interest?
This clearly has nothing to do with jurisprudence. It’s obvious that activist judges (like Boasberg) are abusing their authority for political motives. Furthermore, it doesn’t take a legal scholar to see the president was acting according to established law and Article II powers in the Constitution.
The last paragraph should be of great interest to those who have not followed CSC Roberts time on the SC bench.
It’s not just “simply disagreeing” with a judicial ruling. The problem is liberal activist judges like Boasberg abusing their power by legislating from the bench. I agree with Trump on this. Judges like Boasberg deserve to be and need to be thrown off the bench. A message needs to be sent that judges should stay in their constitutionally mandated lane, issue impartial rulings, and stop acting like unelected legislators in robes. If they want to make the laws, they need to RESIGN FROM THE BENCH and then run for and get elected to the branch of government that actually makes the laws: the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
W. Bush appointed Roberts as someone of his own image, a worthless spineless RINO.
Roberts reveals he is insulated from reality. Not a good look.
I agree. These left wing judges making political influenced decisions from the bench should be impeached and removed.
Uncertain as to the process for impeaching a federal judge, but one who depends criminal organizations by his/her rulings should have just provided the grounds for action. Cannot fathom why our Chief Justice did not just provide those grounds for action rather than responding to social media with his off-the-wall comment.
Many of these activist judges have committed a long train of abuses.
It’s time they pay for that. Being defunded, impeached, or any other legal recourse is within the Constitutional rights of those affected.
WOW, I would hate to be that judge. I have to wonder, WHY WOULD ANYBODY object to deporting illegals like these thugs? Our courts seem to hate America. I was born and raised in Iowa. I say God bless America and watch over our return to some semblance of morals.
Where were the “judges” when Biden allowed 14 million homeless people to waltz into the US at tax payer expense???????
Of course, Roberts will stick up for one of his black robed buds….
Article 3 of the US Constitution gives Congress the authority, by a simple majority vote in each house–followed by the President’s signature–to limit a district court’s authority to it’s own district, and even to abolish any–or all–US district courts. WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR???
Roberts has become a self-centered, power-hungry turncoat and Left-wing NO-Trumper disguised as a moderate. His colleagues should put him on notice NOW to stop siding with socialist, over reaching activist, Trump-hating judges. EVERYTHING Trump tries to do these America-hating Commie judges try to block him.
The fact that 1 bullet just grazed our president’s ear in his July campaign should make all who are criticizing him realize that they are not in charge in this administration. It would not be without reason that the same, that saved our President’s life, will do so again when it comes to those who feel they have the ability to override the U.S. citizens who chose who they wanted to represent us.
Had all the people appointed to the job had done it properly, followed the law and only the law, we would not have this treachery to deal with.
Have no respect for Roberts. He is a traitor.
think how awful, it would be, to be a victim of a criminal in his courtroom. As he lets the criminal go with a congratulatory pat on the back. We are the victims with these criminals allowed to roam.. This ‘judge’ needs to go.
I can’t imagine the arrogance of these judges, they’re in office for life and think they’re unimpeachable, unaccountable to anyone, part of an elite country club, American royalty. What do they think they are, U.S. Senators?
What they need to check into is the background of some of these judges. The gangs have big money and the can very easy pay off people they want to stay in the US this will be a rich country to take over and who knows they may have corrupted some people in government already to fight being deported.
AL for the DC Swamp system
I just started 3 weeks ago this web income system that my friend recommended to me and I’ve gotten 2 checks for a total of $9,200… this is the best decision I made in a long time! This extra cash has changed my life in so many ways, thank you!
Here is I started_______ Rebrand.ly/homejobs20
The normal appellate process that Roberts speaks of would take a year or two and Roberts knows that. These rogue judges get away with this garbage, delaying and delaying things, and nothing ever happens to them. Neither party in congress would vote to impeach a judge unless it was really obvious, like the New Orleans judge with the cash or gold bars or something in his freezer. Decisions overturned by a higher court should be kept track of, and when they reach a certain percentage of a judge’s decisions SCOTUS or the DOJ or whoever’s in charge of them should be able to harshly discipline them! Including removing them from office.
I think Trump should withhold the judge’s paycheck!
How about impeach Roberts as well?
We are not progressive dimmocrats. Why act like them and criminalize decisions with which we disagree? For now, it’s better to let the appeal process play out, and ignore the rulings of activists later if appeals don’t work. Let those [Oedipus Rexes] try to enforce their decisions!
Before we get too high on our high horse over the politicization of the judiciary, at this very moment our boy Elon is trying to buy us a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.