Officials from the Justice Department have suggested the possibility of moving to impeach federal judges, marking a significant escalation in the administration’s ongoing conflict with judges perceived as obstructionist or overly activist.
This potential approach was discussed in a recent virtual meeting between senior Justice Department officials and U.S. attorneys nationwide. According to sources, this strategy could empower Congress, which holds unique impeachment powers, to vote on the removal of federal judges.
Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh led these meetings, where such impeachment discussions were unprecedented. Singh raised the issue after receiving numerous complaints about a particular judge from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as noted by a source. This marks a novel development in the executive branch’s engagement with the judiciary.
Singh has requested that U.S. attorneys gather examples of issues that have arisen with judges. These examples would help evaluate whether there’s a basis for recommending impeachment.
A representative from the Justice Department confirmed this initiative, arguing that the Trump administration is confronting “unprecedented judicial activism” from judges who prioritize personal prestige over impartial legal interpretation.
“The Department has asked for the most egregious examples of this obstruction to support Congress in managing judges who fail to adhere to their oaths,” the spokesperson stated.
If any referrals are made, they would be directed to the House, which must then decide on impeachment. This is quite rare; historically, only 15 judges have been impeached by the House for offenses like corruption.
This year, Congress is contemplating impeachment for federal judges James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman. Boasberg, appointed by Obama, has had several rulings against the Trump administration, particularly concerning immigration matters, while Boardman notably revised the sentence of an individual convicted of attempting to assassinate Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Although there has been significant call from Republicans for impeachment, actual proceedings have yet to begin.
While remedies for unfavorable rulings include public censure or appeals—which require a complex internal approval process—seeking impeachment from a predominantly Republican House would represent a shift in strategy. Conviction would necessitate a two-thirds Senate vote, leading to the forfeiture of a judge’s lifetime position.
The Justice Department is currently handling numerous cases, mainly focused on stringent immigration policies, leading to frequent unfavorable decisions from lower judges.
For instance, a case involving Juan Espinosa Martinez, accused of a murder-for-hire plot against a Border Patrol agent, ended in acquittal when a judge ruled that the evidence wasn’t sufficient to present to jurors regarding Martinez’s alleged gang affiliation.
A Justice Department spokesperson elaborated on various grievances, highlighting instances where judges have declined to process charges or warrants despite apparent probable cause, made errors in evidence rulings, and issued restraining orders without allowing adequate time for response.
The House Judiciary Committee, which oversees judicial impeachments, has been contacted regarding how it plans to address any forthcoming referrals.
