UJ
—
Chief Justice John Roberts publicly countered President Donald Trump’s intensifying remarks against the federal judiciary in an unusual statement directed at the president’s calls for impeaching judges who rule unfavorably.
“For over two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate remedy for disagreements regarding judicial actions,” Roberts stated in a release from the Supreme Court. “There is a standard appellate review process for that purpose.”
Roberts’ statement did not specify Trump but came shortly after the president intensified his attacks on federal judges by calling to impeach US District Judge James Boasberg, who temporarily blocked the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Trump allies, including Elon Musk, have been advocating for weeks for the impeachment of judges following several preliminary rulings against the Trump administration. Trump’s rhetoric against the judiciary in this term has been notably more aggressive than during his first term, which has raised concerns about a potential constitutional crisis.
Some Republican members of Congress are responding to the president’s stance with moves to impeach federal judges, who hold lifetime appointments. Texas Republican Rep. Brandon Gill indicated on social media that he has submitted articles of impeachment against Boasberg.
“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President — He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
A White House spokesperson has not yet responded to a request for comment.
Roberts has had a complicated relationship with some conservative circles, especially since his decision upholding Obamacare in 2012, despite consistently siding with conservatives on issues such as guns, abortion, religion, affirmative action, and other significant societal debates.
The conservative majority on the Supreme Court stands at 6-3, with Trump appointing three of the justices. The court has often sided with his administration in critical cases, particularly the prior year’s decision that granted former presidents considerable immunity from criminal prosecution for their official conduct. Nonetheless, there have been multiple emergency orders issued against him since Trump returned to the presidency.
Additionally, Trump seemed particularly keen to win Roberts’ favor during his joint address to Congress earlier this month.
“Thank you again. I won’t forget it,” Trump was heard expressing to Roberts on the House floor. The president later claimed on social media that the gratitude was directed at Roberts for swearing him in during his inauguration.
Gabe Roth, executive director of the oversight organization Fix the Court, commented that Roberts made “an important point” with his statement but noted, “it’s a little rich coming from the individual who, by granting Donald Trump nearly total immunity in a significant ruling last year, contributed to the current era of lawlessness.”
The chief justice and other Supreme Court justices have mostly remained silent as Trump and his allies have intensified attacks against the judiciary, amid a series of preliminary rulings that have not favored them. Many of these cases are under appeal and will likely be presented to the conservative-dominated Supreme Court in the near future.
Although Roberts did not specify any particular case, his statement emerged while the administration’s lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union are engaged in a legal dispute before a federal judge in Washington, DC, concerning the sudden expulsion of Venezuelan individuals.
The Justice Department’s management of this case has raised concerns about whether the White House ignored a court order to immediately halt flights deporting Venezuelans under the contentious Alien Enemies Act. Judge Boasberg’s ruling was not conclusive but rather a temporary action to provide the court time to deliberate on the arguments presented. Nonetheless, the White House has portrayed the judge’s ruling as an effort to overstep presidential authority.
During a hearing on Monday where Boasberg sought clarity on the specific measures the administration took following his order, DOJ lawyers initially refrained from commenting due to concerns about national security. In a sworn declaration released on Tuesday, immigration officials stated that the Venezuelan nationals removed were subject to deportation orders under different laws, not the Alien Enemies Act.
Trump is attempting to invoke a law from 1798 allowing the federal government to fast-track deportations of citizens from a “hostile nation” during war or when an enemy attempts an “invasion or predatory incursion” into the United States. Critics have emphasized that the US is not officially at war and have questioned whether the administration’s interpretation of “invasion” aligns with the requirements of the law.
That is a matter that the courts, including the Supreme Court, will likely have to address eventually.
Roberts’ statement on Tuesday bore resemblance to a rebuke he expressed in 2018 when he remarked in response to Trump’s comments that, “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
At that time, a judge from the Northern District of California had issued a temporary order preventing the first Trump administration from blocking migrants who cross into the US illegally from seeking asylum.
“It’s disgraceful that all cases get filed in the 9th Circuit,” Trump stated as part of a lengthy critique of the court. “That’s contrary to the law. Every case in the 9th Circuit we lose and then we have to go to the Supreme Court like the travel ban, and we won. Every case, regardless of where it is, they practically file it in what is known as the 9th Circuit. This was an Obama judge. I’m telling you, it’s not going to happen like this anymore.”
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts, nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, stated then. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges striving to provide equal rights to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something for which we should all be grateful.”
UJ’s Devan Cole contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with further developments.
