The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
On Judicial Impeachments
Over at The Dispatch, I have a new piece on the impeachment of federal judges. In a Truth social post, President Donald Trump did what no sitting president has done before, publicly called for the impeachment of a federal judge. In doing so, he stoked the flames of MAGA world which, since the start of President Trump's second term, has become very unhappy with the third branch of government. People of influence and power are now regularly floating extreme solutions to Trump's judicial problem, and impeachment is just one of the options apparently on the table.
As a practical matter impeachment is not easy, as Trump's own first term of office amply demonstrated. As a matter of constitutional principle, the abuse of power by a federal judge might well justify impeachment and removal, but identifying such abuses of powers is likely to be difficult and controversial. There are circumstances when impeaching a federal officer in the House might be a reasonable move even when conviction in the Senate is unlikely, but the House should think carefully about what they are trying to accomplish and how they can best accomplish it before embarking on any impeachment effort.
From the piece:
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.
Read the whole thing here.
For a broader examination of the impeachment power and the law and politics of using it, check out my most recent book.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Moral cowards like Gym Jordan will have no problem impeaching any judge if the Dear Leader will it.
Speaker Johnson and Majority Leader Thune have publicly tossed cold water on any impeachment. It isn't happening.
Nor should it, given the facts, presently.
You're right. Impeachment shouldn't happen. What should happen is Trump should order Delta or SEAL teams should kidnap these "judges" at their homes and disappear them. Do it to a few of them, and no judge in America will dare to make any unconstitutional ruling against Trump's administration.
But the facts, presently are why we should.
In what other area of life do you decide to go with only what you know now, when you could learn the whole truth.
Two things -- first the goal of The Resistance is to run out the clock and not to actually have any of their judgments stand. Everyone knows that Trump is a lame duck with only about a year to get things accomplished, so if SCOTUS overrules these schmucks in June of 2026, it's largely irrelevant.
Second, Impeachment became nothing more than a political tactic with the Impeachments of Trump. Clinton clearly had committed perjury -- the Arkansas Bar agreed and yanked his law license, and he was a former Governor of that state.
By contrast, I still can't figure out what Trump was impeached for the first time, and the second time was a joke. It is right up there with digging up Cromwell's corpse and executing him post mortem -- which actually happened.
So I don't see a problem with Impeaching these schmucks.
" I still can't figure out... So I don't see..." Yes, we know.
You think that after this year the Democrats will win back at least one house of Congress, which will pretty much neuter Trump? I tell you, if Trump keeps f---ing around with my 401(k) and my social security, the Dems will win back both houses and he will be the one impeached. Those things are even more important than the price of eggs (which isn't doing so great either, BTW).
So the toothless legislative branch that could do something and isn't , IS YOUR HOPE?? Yes, hang your future on Bernie Sanders and AOC. If Kamala had gotten in, she would be talking about how secure SS is, because 'it is up there in a cloud'
I knew you wouldn't mention Judge Boasberg's daughter's work shielding illegal aliens. At least pretend to be current.
WHAT BULLSHIT
"litigation requires some patience as cases are argued, decided, and appealed."
Nothing is ever obvious to a lawyer.
Nor her work on the great Yeti conspiracy of 2025, as long as we're making stuff up.
You need a time out. You're obviously not mentally well, and that was probably true before the TDS.
So I guess Mike Johnson was hinting at jurisdiction stripping and disbanding certain courts. Which is all well and good and certainly within their power. Although on immigration stuff it gets a bit dicey because there would still be a right to review detention under habeas corpus which Congress can only suspend during invasion. And although we’ve talked about using invasion in the context of illegal immigration i.e. border crossing, it’s unclear how Congress could apply that to any legal immigrants they wish to deport without due process (this would also apply to people legally seeking asylum, which some sent to El Salvador were so they would have to completely make that illegal too). I mean they could theoretically declare legal permanent residents invaders…but how do they do that without causing a massive diplomatic incident?. If they want to detain pending someone like Khalid or Yunseo Chung deportation and suspend habeas review of those decisions wouldn’t they’d have to say that Lebanon or South Korea is invading the US? Or are they going to declare ANY immigration an invasion? How the hell would that work? Every country would take that as a declaration of war wouldn’t they? And I don’t know if just renditioning them out of the country as quickly as possible to avoid habeas is going to work either.
No; unlike wrt the AEA, the constitutional suspension of habeas need not be tied to a specific country. "The country is being invaded; therefore, habeas is suspended."
They can't suspend the writ, but they could remove it from the jurisdiction of the inferior courts -- leaving it to SCOTUS. And I'm sure that SCOTUS would love to be buried in that, but if Congress could abolish the inferior courts outright, it clearly could prevent it from hearing them.
After all, who would be hearing them were there no inferior courts.
That Congress has been too lax and other presidents too compliant in the past should somehow constrain their reaction to judicial misbehavior today? Given the current state of the judiciary, it is well past time for Congress to exercise some needed oversight. And an impeachment would go a long way to restoring some balance.
I agree, but I just don't think there are the votes to remove Trump.
I'm sure you would. But the topic is judicial impeachments not the Russian collusion fraud.
"What Should Trump's Circuit Nominees Look Like?"
Who cares? As long as they have the correct distribution of skin colors, sexes, genders, ethnic backgrounds, family histories, handicaps and mental disabilities, we can be sure their judgments will be acceptable.
Seems like you're confused both by what post you're responding to as well as who's doing the nominating and confirming these days. But I guess you got so used to fighting against the same strawmen that it's hard to stop.
Generic meds; some days they work, some days they don't.
Midterm Congressional elections have historically not gone well for the political party holding the White House. The current Republican edge in each house of Congress is slim (especially in the House of Representatives).
If Republicans heed President Trump's foolish call to impeach district judges who rule against him, I expect that will come back to bite them in next year's midterms.
Unless measles takes out most of the MAGA voters in the U.S,, there is zero chance of the Democrats taking the senate. Zero.
Nothing is ever zero, although it's obviously unlikely.
Democrats would have to flip four seats without losing any. North Carolina and Maine are probably reasonable for Dems to think about even in a non-wave election, although both would be stretches. Ohio has gone pretty red, but had a D Senator until last year. If Trump actually manages to crash the economy and/or continue the current level of buffoonery, it doesn't seem out of the question that Florida and maybe even Iowa or Montana might be in play.
I'd put the odds at <10%, but Republicans are going to fully own whatever happens over the next two years and if the first 2.5 months are any indication, things could be awfully messy at that point.
Sen. Ossoff's seat in Georgia will be difficult to hold.
Maine, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire and possibly Kentucky should be competitive.
Michigan and NH are already Democratic; they need to hold them and pick up 4 net seats. (The close loss of Bob Casey Jr. really was a dagger in the heart of the party's senate chances.) You have to assume they take both NC and ME, which is reasonable but hardly a gimme. And then two more. And your selections are pretty desperate. Yes, Kentucky is open, but it hasn't elected a Democrat to the senate since 1992. Florida is a bit better, but still not since 2012. (Rick Scott, who has the charm of Voldemort, won by 13 points this past year.)
Maine is going to be interesting -- General Mills, who comes from a RINO family, is creating a mess of Maine right now. The state can't afford to lose the money she's daring Trump to take, it hasn't funded Medicaid for the seconds half of the biannual budget, and doesn't have the money to.
Susan Collins first ran for the US Senate 30 years ago -- in 1996 -- and she will be 73 years old next fall. She is from far Northern Maine (Caribou) and now lives in Bangor -- in a state where the population base is 150 miles to the south.
I'm not sure she is going to want to run -- I'm really not sure that she will be renominated, and the wild card would be Trump coming into the state to campaign for an unknown MAGA Republican -- who could easily win as the state is agreeing with Trump and not Mills.
And as to New Hampshire, do not forget that Karoline Leavitt is from New Hampshire and almost became Congressman from there. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) is not seeking reelection so this is an open seat. Leavitt is too young to run for it, but likely will be an asset.
And in Massachusetts, Ice Cream Man, Ed Markey, is running for his third term. (His only job outside of political office was driving an ice cream truck.) He'll win, but the Dems are going to have to invest in this race because he will be 79 years old and doesn't have the Bernie attraction to the left-leaning progressive ideologues that run the Mass Dems.
Remember that's how Scott Brown got elected -- the Dems were split. Markey is going to keep his seat, if he runs, but there aren't going to be resources to send north.
Wishing for disease and death to one's political opponents. You're a class act crazy Dave.
Bot can't parse the English language.
He called for the impeachment of the wrong judge. The judge who should be impeached is the one who tried to take over the military based on her belief of what Jesus would do in her shoes and her belief that there are 31 sexes.
Stupid talking points remain stupid, and how would that be impeachable, anyway?
"belief that there are 31 sexes"
Judges should not be delusional. If they are, they should be removed {not hat thee is a chance of it happening]
Usurping CinC powers is bad too.
1) She did not say that there were 31 sexes; we went over this last time.
2) It's not like she believes something crazy like god had a kid with some woman who never had sex and that you have to pledge fealty to this kid or be tortured forever.
3) The CinC does not have the power to unilaterally decide who can be in the military. (That's the reason Republican-appointed judges prevented Biden from enforcing his vaccine mandate on the military.)
I knew you were a repulsive POS but didn't know you were also a Christian bigot. You're truly a well rounded POS.
Bot still can't parse the English language.
He's a Jew, they loath Christians. Many actually curse Christians 3x a day.
That's why they hate Christmas too.
Voltage!
Bernstein is going to get right on this.
"2) It's not like she believes something crazy like god had a kid with some woman who never had sex and that you have to pledge fealty to this kid or be tortured forever."
Huh? Then why was she trying to figure out in court what that kid would do? She not only believes in the kid, she bases her rulings on His wishes instead of the law.
Call it faith or delusion, beliefs in immaculate conceptions or 31 sexes have no place in court.
Don't see why we can't impeach both.
"I'm not sure this is accurate. Justice Barrett has a tendency to reverse the Fifth Circuit on a fairly regular basis."
I'm not sure that's meaningful. My understanding is that on cases where they grant cert, knowing nothing else, the reversal rate is around 70%.
There may well be a case that the Fifth Circuit needs a centrist judge. This isn't it.
IIRC Nixon and Ford wanted to impeach Justice Douglas. Republicans also pushed Fortas to resign.
"President Donald Trump did what no sitting president has done before, publicly called for the impeachment of a federal judge."
oh noes, he called for an impeachment! The horror!!!!
As I've said, the neutering of judicial impeachment after the failed Chase trial was a tragedy. Judges are political actors now, they should be subject to political counteractions.
Chase deserved to be impeached for the charge to the Baltimore Grand Jury, and that got lost in the politics.
A successful impeachment conviction is not the goal.
The process is the punishment.
Triumphant acquittal, accompanied by political martyrdom they can dine out on for years? "Don't throw me into the briar patch, Br'er Fox!"
The impeachment of Judge Samuel Chase arose partially for partisan political reasons, but there were also specific impeachment counts. He was charged with mishandling multiple trials, and overall, there was a charge of his being a partisan judge.
Chase took time away from his judicial duties to support a specific candidate in the 1800 presidential elections. Federal judges were known to give politically tinged charges to trials, including grand juries, which promoted a certain overall view of the Constitution.
But this sort of thing by a SCOTUS justice even then was a bit much. The allegations of Chase being biased toward certain defendants (which people debate on the particulars) should be put in this overall partisan context. So, the turning point here wasn't just about Congress being more restrained in impeachment but also a lesson to judges.
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson also raised debates over the reach of impeachment. Some members of Congress had a more open-ended opinion on grounds to impeach him. The ultimate impeachment grounds were more legalistic.
It's possible to argue that not enough impeachment investigations are ongoing, but opposition to a judge's rulings on a specific case, which ultimately can be addressed by the courts of appeal, is dubious, especially when the alleged grounds are unfounded. The constitutional text implies this by not saying something like "maladministration" or some sort of judicial recall process, which is the rule in some states, but specific crime-like wrongdoing.
Sorry, CJ Rehnquist, that is Justice Chase.
The word "good behavior" does provide a more open-ended ground for impeachment, but the impeachment clause specifically has limited grounds. This leads to the possible hypothetical that "good behavior" can be enforced in other ways, including ethical rules not only enforced by impeachment.
That's one way to parse it. Another way would be that impeachable conduct would violate good behavior, and bad behavior would be impeachable. That is the most economical view, though originalist maven Raoul Berger agreed with your erroneous conception.
Not saying I currently see any chance of this happening. But the decision in Trump v. United States is a perfect fit for an originalist interpretation of, "high crimes and misdemeanors." As long as they continue to sit, all the justices who voted for Trump in that case will remain proper candidates for impeachment and removal.
The same criteria would justify impeachment and removal of any other judge or justice who did likewise. Just as the impeachment power is justified against other officers of the United States, of whatever kind.
Note that a, "high crime," in 18th century context is not defined by reference to the word "high," as an intensifier—in the way, "aggravated," is used in modern legal parlance, to suggest a crime more dangerous than a lesser offense of the same kind. Instead, the word, "high," is meant to designate a class of cases, comprising only those which affront the sovereign—as with the British usage, "high treason."
Thus, to vote to empower the President of the United States with criminal impunity is to attack directly multiple essential aspects of the jointly sovereign People's scheme of governance for the United States, as decreed in their Constitution.
The People remain the nation's sovereign. To attack them from the bench of the Supreme Court is as high as political crime can get. It actually opens a contest for sovereignty, opposing the People themselves by highly-placed members of the People's government. The People's political power to remove and punish such offenders is fully justified by their power to act at pleasure to defend their sovereignty, or in instances of this sort, to act at displeasure.
The subtitle to the Professor's Dispatch article gives it away. Isn't the point of the impeachment threats to "undermine the rule of law"?
It can be. It can also be the opposite, as in maintaining the rule of of law; since the president has been functionally immunized for any consequences of law-breaking, the second more than ever.
Let's get logical. Are either of you saying there is no value to having an impeachment power? Both of you make pre-judges of whether it is being used for maintaining or for undermining. Yet neither of you takes that tack with Judge Boasberg himself.I doubt all corruption is at the highest levels 🙂
We have impechment powers for judges because there are bad judges.
I'm against impeachment. Votes not there. Just ignore the orders.
Judge James Boasberg’s ruling against President Trump was revenge for halting government funding to his daughter Katherine Boasberg’s NGO “Partners for Justice,” which gives criminal illegal aliens and gang members legal advice.
To date, virtually every Federal Judge who has ruled against President Trump has been proven to be compromised, having a serious conflict(s) of interest and, in some cases, a criminal conflict(s) of interest.
Their rulings benefitted their family, relatives, and friends, and in some cases, they financially benefited directly from their illegal and unlawful rulings.
Federal District Judges do not have nationwide jurisdiction to rule against the Executive branch.
It does not in fact do any such thing, and does not get government funding, and please stop using the phrase "NGO" which you just learned for the first time a few weeks ago.