U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked President Donald Trump on Tuesday for urging the impeachment of a federal judge, laying bare tensions between the country's chief executive and the judiciary as Trump's sweeping assertions of power run into judicial roadblocks.
In a rare statement, Roberts wrote: "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."
He wrote the correct response was to file an appeal.
Roberts' statement followed Trump's call in a social media post on Tuesday for the impeachment of a federal judge. Washington-based U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the administration on Saturday to halt the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members, which Trump has argued is authorized by an 18th-century law historically used only in wartime.
Tensions have been rising in the eight weeks since Trump returned to the White House with the president and his allies publicly criticizing courts for blocking aspects of Trump’s agenda.
The combative atmosphere has raised concerns among some legal experts that the administration might openly defy a court order, possibly sparking a constitutional crisis.
At a hearing Judge Boasberg had ordered a halt to all deportations carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, including turning around any planes already in transit. Two planes carrying hundreds of the alleged gang members were already in the air and were not returned, prompting accusations that Trump's administration had defied the court order.
The Trump administration wrote that two flights had departed before the judge's written order was issued and that spoken orders the judge had issued in court before the written notice hit the docket were not enforceable.
"I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" Trump wrote on Tuesday. Trump also called the judge a "Radical Left Lunatic."
U.S. Marshals have warned judges of heightened threats in recent weeks as administration allies have ramped up efforts to discredit judges who stand in the way of White House actions.
On social media, billionaire Elon Musk, a close Trump ally, and Republican lawmakers have described judges as threats to democracy. "The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges," Musk wrote in one post.
IMPEACHMENTS OF JUDGES RARE
Eight judges have been impeached, convicted and removed in U.S. history, the last in 2010, and some legal scholars have raised doubts about the possibility of any impeachment such as the one imagined by Trump succeeding.
Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said it is inevitable that judges will issue rulings that disappoint or anger politicians.
"A lone erroneous ruling, even on an issue of national significance, has never been understood to meet the threshold for impeaching a federal judge, and there is little question that federal judges are not going to be removed on that basis," Adler said.
Retired federal judge Jeremy Fogel, who heads the Berkeley Judicial Institute at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said he agreed with Roberts' statement.
"I think that realistically the threats have no chance of succeeding, but they contribute to a toxic atmosphere that makes the already difficult work of federal judges more difficult," Fogel said.
Trump's post marked the first time during his second term as president that he has called for a judge's impeachment, a move that garnered support from his Republican allies in Congress.
Just hours after Trump's post, Republican lawmaker Brandon Gill of Texas said on X that he had introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
To remove a judge from office, the House must pass articles of impeachment by a simple majority vote and then the Senate must vote by at least a two-thirds majority to convict the judge. Republicans control both chambers of Congress but do not have a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
The statement by Roberts, a conservative who was appointed by Republican then-President George W Bush, echoes one from 2018, when Roberts defended the judiciary's independence after persistent attacks by Trump during his first term in office.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement at the time.
"What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for," Roberts added.
Trump, who has appointed three of the justices to the nine-member court himself, had called a judge who ruled against his policy barring asylum for certain immigrants an "Obama judge."
A narrow majority of Supreme Court justices that included Roberts brushed Trump back in a pair of procedural rulings issued since Trump reentered the White House on January 20.
On February 21, the court declined to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency after a judge's order temporarily blocked the dismissal. On March 5, the court declined to let Trump's administration withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government.
The court meanwhile is weighing Trump's March 13 request asking it to intervene in his bid to curb automatic U.S. birthright citizenship.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
59 Comments
TaiwanIsNotChina
Roberts better be prepared to execute new controls over the completely lawless administration.
patkim
Trump saying that a federal judge has done enough in his job to warrant impeachment is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I'veSeenFootage
Imagine being so utterly lawless that Chief Justice Roberts has to publicly rebuke you...
bass4funk
Roberts should have never injected himself into the executive branch and enter the political fray and open himself up for a can of worms and I like Roberts, but it’s not his call. If he wants to opine, then take up the case, rule on it and then issue an opinion
Underworld
bass4funk
It’s totally Robert’s call. If you don’t like the decision of a judge, don’t have a tantrum, call them an activist judge, and call to have them impeached.
The judge is just doing their job, stopping the president from doing illegal things.
Simon Foston
bass4funkToday 07:08 am JST
I think he knows his own job better than you do.
theFu
When the Executive Branch is constantly violating the US Constitution and doesn't realize that there are laws to protect people in the US from abuse of power by the executive branch, then it is both Congress and the Judicial branches DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to hold the Chief Executive accountable.
Trump doesn't have the authority to violate US laws.
Part of the US Constitution is to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
The 3 branches of the USGovt was setup to prevent straight tyranny as well
https://www.usconstitution.net/constitutional-protections-against-tyranny/
bass4funk
But the left were outraged when he said this…
Well, the left had a tantrum then as well, a very big one
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-warns-of-daunting-consequences-of-trump-ballot-ban-5584046
Which has nothing to do with the highest judiciary system in the land, we are talking about local courts trying to impede the powers of the executive branch.
bass4funk
I’m not so sure, the three branches are co-equal and independent from each other, if Roberts knew this (and I know he does, then stay out of it) now he can give an opinion, but that’s it, he can’t stop this President, but sure, he can opine, but was it good for him to do so? I think not.
Bob Fosse
Is Roberts now a ‘radical left activist’ too?
bass4funk
Not at all, not sure why you even would say that, that’s like me questioning if Bernie Sanders is a conservative.
BB
We need more sensible Republicans like Roberts to push back against the radical campaign to undermine Rule of Law and replace it with an obese man-child's whims.
Underworld
bass4funk
They are just doing their job. It’s not their fault that Trump is doing illegal things.
patkim
Uh, it is. That's his job. His job is to judge. Sure, some calls go your way; sometimes it doesn't. You just have to accept and live with it. Look, when the Supreme Court decided to get rid of Roe v. Wade, I was against it, but in the end I accepted it and moved on. I never once called the removal for any of the judges. Although Clarence Thomas is one judge who I think is a bit corrupt based on his list of scandals. I even liked and accepted the decisions of some of the most conservative judges in the past, such as Scalia.
Bob Fosse
Give it a week. If he rebukes 47 once more you’ll change your tune.
bass4funk
That won’t happen so…
bass4funk
No, it’s not in theory, he can do so once they take the case
Which is a separate branch, co-equal
Absolutely, but the thing is, Trump campaigned on getting rid of illegals and in particular the most violent as his highest priority, they’re not going to stop him, he will push this and continue doing this, so I understand what you are saying, you make a good point, but all in its proper time and place and this will be in Roberts hands soon enough, no need to jump the gun and bring more scrutiny on the highest court in the nation
Ah_so
And if the President knows that the three branches are co-equal and independent, shouldn't he also stay out of it? The President should leave the lawyers to do their jobs and interpret the law.
It seems that you apply a very different standard to the head of the executive branch when he comments on the judicial branch than you do to the head of the judicial branch when he took comments on a matter of the judicial branch.
bass4funk
Not when the judiciary interferes with the process of the executive
I don’t, seriously
Ah_so
A common thread seen in all countries that slide from democracy to autocracy is the undermining and ultimately defenestration of the independent judiciary.
Trump can't do it with just words alone, but through intimidation and the use of appointments to select puppets, and even potentially impeachment of those he disagrees with, he wants to make the judiciary just another arm of his power.
Many MAGA fanatics would endorse this because they want an authoritarian strong man in place to rule them. But for others, it should be recognised as part of an attempt to undermine the constitution and concentrate power in the hands of the president.
Ah_so
It hasn't. It has applied the law as it interprets it. There is an appeals process that goes ultimately to a very pro-Trump Supreme Court.
HopeSpringsEternal
DJT has understandable 'angst' at radical judges, but the process needs to play out.
Nobody serious in legal circles believes a low-level District Court Judge has any "standing" to weigh in on ongoing national security matters with terrorists.
Next, he'll try to tell US Generals not to bomb Houthis!
US citizens FIRMLY in Trump's corner, fed up with radical left putting terrorist legal rights ahead of their SAFETY
Underworld
HopeSpringsEternal
And means that judges stop his illegal actions.
Firstly, there is no evidence that they are terrorists.
And everyone knows that the District Court has authority to determine the legality of the president’s actions and adjudicate appropriately.
patkim
I choose a judge that will not be corrupt, will be experienced and knowledgeable in the Constitution and the laws within it, and will respect the rule of law. Whether or not they are liberal or conservative, as long as they live by and abide by the law, I will respect that.
Trump and many conservatives; especially the MAGA radicals don't care if a person has respect for the law. As long as that person, even if they are a felon, agrees with everything they think, they will like that person. They don't care with what evil acts that person has done in the past. As long as that person pledges their loyalty to them, they will like and respect that person. Of course, it's not all conservatives. I know a few who I respect, even if they have different views from my own. The basic thing we share is that we want to have a good quality of life, but accomplish it by respecting other people's lives and the laws.
HopeSpringsEternal
Higher courts will determine if this judge standing to weigh in on ongoing national security matters and operations now underway by the Executive Branch, regarding known and dangerous illegal alien terrorists.
Will this Judge also weigh in on Generals, FBI, CIA, etc. and their ongoing activities to protect US National Security?
There's a line, a jurisdictional limit. Most experts believe this Judge lacks standing to weigh in on this matter.
Express sister
That is highly debatable. But what isn't is that the executive is actively interfering with the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the highest representative of said judiciary to publicly intervene.
bass4funk
Oh, the left have short memories…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/01/04/house-democrats-want-clarence-thomas-to-recuse-from-trump-ballot-case/
Should be…
Democrats and ethics experts have widely criticized Thomas’ participation in election-related cases, with some lawmakers on the left calling for him to recuse himself or even resign.
Uh-huh….
https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/editorials-for-students/pa-democrats-defy-two-pa-supreme-court-rulings/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe
I feel the same about some liberals.
The basic thing we share is that we want to have a good quality of life, but accomplish it by respecting other people's lives and the laws.
I agree, so we need to be fair and not hypocrites, the left have a long, long way to go to achieve that.
You took that out of context
rainyday
So if I understand your logic correctly:
The executive calling for the removal of judges that rule against it = “Totally fine”
The head of the judiciary simply saying “you can’t do that” = “egregious breach of separation of powers (clutches pearls)”
SCOTUS cannot “take up a case” at its discretion. The case has to be appealed by one of the parties to it. Which is literally what Roberts is saying Trump should do, and what you are criticizing him for saying,
wallace
Trump can't get all of his ducks in a row.
GuruMick
Hope...wasnt the matter BOUGHT before the Judge who made the interim findings re deportation ?
Judges dont "select " what cases they "want " to hear.
They rule on Law on the matter before them.
Sheesh....so stuff is basic...posters dont have much of an understanding...
And Trump is more versed in Bankruptcy Law .
Blacklabel
So judges can’t be impeached?
Im quite sure there is a process for it.
what about the Supreme Court justices?
Democrats wanted to impeach Clarence Thomas, didn’t they?
Express sister
Of course they can. But not for making the President upset.
There is. None start with "Made the President upset".
Yes, though a very high bar must be proven. "Made the President mad" does not clear this bar.
I'm sure some did and still do.
patkim
More than ever, we need these judges. With the illegal removing of people from their jobs, many without justification or evidence, with several immigrants being deported with no court or proof that each and every one of them being rounded up are indeed gang members, with funding for necessary benefits for the disabled and veterans being taken away without any justification or evidence, the sheer number of cases being brought forth will need to be heard.
With the overstepping of due process and laws, it has gotten to the point where some actual legal immigrants are being rounded up and deported. It has also come to the point where hard working people are being fired, and not only those who should be let go. It has gotten to the point where women, minorities, and the disabled are being discriminated against because of the actions of Trump.
BB
Yes, because he's corrupt. According to the Constitution judges can be removed for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and doing so requires both houses of Congress.
Blacklabel
proof?
Underworld
Blacklabel
No. Not because you disagree with their ruling.
Yes. For corruption.
bass4funk
Because you say so? Give me a break, stop listening to msnbc
Well, you just made my point for me.
Express sister
No, because he accepts expensive gifts from people whose cases he is trying and because he refused to recuse himself in cases that directly involved his wife, a clear conflict of interest that even the most dim-witted of observers could understand.
Blacklabel
So how was Clarence Thomas found to be “corrupt”?
wasnt it just he made Democrats mad?
This judge could be corrupt based on his family ties to this nonsensical verdict.
Express sister
I'm glad you asked. Here's an article on the subject. Be warned: it has big words in it.
https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-us-supreme-court/
No.
Go ahead, talk me through your latest conspiracy theory.
Blacklabel
This judge up for impeachment:
refused to recuse himself in cases that directly involved his daughter and his sister and her husband, a clear conflict of interest that even the most dim-witted of observers could understand.
rainyday
Just to be clear, the allegations in the impeachment against Clarence Thomas were:
1. Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information.
2. Refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse’s legal interest in cases before the court.
3. Refusal to recuse from matters involving his spouse’s financial interest in cases before the court.
In contrast, the allegations in the impeachment against James Boasberg are:
1. He made a ruling Trump didn't like.
Express sister
[Citation needed]
bass4funk
Debunked and he is not stepping down, now had he ruled against Trump, you guys would praise him, we know that.
Oh, but it did, watch the video.
BB
Tons of unreported private plane trips and yacht excursions provided by Republican billionaires like Harlan Crow in a bid to keep him on the bench after he complained about his low pay. It's been out there for a couple of years.
Cephus
"Roberts should have never injected himself into the executive branch and enter the political fray and open himself up for a can of worms and I like Roberts, but it’s not his call. If he wants to opine, then take up the case, rule on it and then issue an opinion."
That's very true, but there is a process set in place to remove a judge from the bench. Perhaps that's what Roberts is referring to but as long as President DJT and or Roberts argue in public it only benefits the gotcha games media.
Cephus
bass4funk
"You do you, I'm not worried, the man is not going anywhere, but not that you brought it up, let's hope during these 4 years that a liberal justice doesn't retire."
I hope President DJT, get the chance of nominating on more great man or woman.
Express sister
Still waiting for evidence on this, buddy.
bass4funk
So did RBG Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2018 took a trip to Israel compliments of billionaire Morris Kahn, who had business before the court just a year earlier.
Ok, so that means both sides do it and yet they both will stay until the end.
Express sister
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2QgnkF2QuY
I'veSeenFootage
Debunked.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/clarence-thomas-ruth-bader-ginsburg-travel-violations.html
stormcrow
Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall in the U.S. Supreme Court chamber listening to the high court justices discussing Trump’s actions.
WA4TKG
Illegal aliens are not citizens and not afforded the protections a citizen are, especially those finally being evicted from being in the country illegally.
Good riddance, all in the name of: “Orange Man Bad”
More to Come
buchailldana
Fair play to Justice Rovers standing up to the wannabe dictator in chief.
Hope he'll be able to withstand the inevitable attacks on him now.
They already after Amy Coney Barrett .
Bunch of rabid dogs
bass4funk
No, sorry, Slate can't change what happened, so basically we have two corrupt justices, but one now is deceased. Relax about Thomas, he is not going anywhere unless he retires and then Trump replaces him with a younger justice.
Blacklabel
The paid employment of his sister Margaret, her husband Christoper Bierly and his daughter Katharine, identified on far left owned LinkedIn.
and the whole extended family of confirmed Democrat donors.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=olHdXNCKD3M&pp=ygUhaSBnZXQgdGhlIGpvYiBkb25lIGJpZyBkYWRkeSBrYW5l
bass4funk
Yes, but it might not be what the left thinks. Lol
They love this country as well.
Blacklabel
within 2 minutes: thaaaaaats debunked!
lol
Express sister
This is certainly evidence that these people are employed. Which case did he try that involved this foundation?
Also, "far-left LinkedIn", lmao.
Family members donating to a political party is not grounds for impeachment.
Shoddy even by your subterranean standards.