Chief Justice Roberts Pushes Back Against Trump’s Call to Impeach Judges

Chief Justice John Roberts has taken a firm stand against growing political attacks on the judiciary. In a rare public statement, Roberts defended the independence of federal judges, pushing back against former President Donald Trump’s calls to impeach those who rule against him.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement released by the Supreme Court. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Although Roberts did not mention Trump by name, his remarks came just hours after the former president called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg recently blocked the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members, prompting backlash from Trump and his allies.

For weeks, some conservative figures, including tech billionaire Elon Musk, have demanded the impeachment of judges over rulings they view as politically motivated. Trump’s attacks on the judiciary have grown sharper since his return to the White House, sparking concerns about potential threats to judicial independence.

Congressional Response

Republican lawmakers have taken action in response to Trump’s rhetoric. Texas Rep. Brandon Gill announced that he introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, following the former president’s demand. The push to remove federal judges—who hold lifetime appointments—marks a significant escalation in the ongoing battle between the judiciary and the executive branch.

Trump, known for his fiery social media posts, lashed out at Boasberg on Truth Social. “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President,” Trump wrote. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

The White House has not issued a response to Roberts’ statement, but the Justice Department now faces scrutiny over its handling of deportations under Boasberg’s order.

Judicial Independence Under Fire

Roberts has long navigated tensions with conservatives, despite siding with them on major issues like gun rights, abortion, and affirmative action. Many on the right have never forgiven him for upholding the Affordable Care Act in 2012.

Trump himself nominated three of the current justices, giving conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court. The justices have ruled in his favor on critical issues, including a decision that granted former presidents broad immunity from prosecution. However, in recent emergency rulings, the Court has delivered setbacks to his administration.

Despite these rulings, Trump recently made a point to acknowledge Roberts during his joint address to Congress, offering a cryptic remark: “Thank you again. I won’t forget it.” He later claimed he was thanking Roberts for swearing him in at his inauguration.

The Bigger Legal Battle

Beyond impeachment threats, the judiciary faces an even bigger constitutional challenge. The Justice Department has defended its recent deportations by arguing that they were carried out under laws other than the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump is attempting to invoke.

That 1798 law allows the federal government to deport citizens of a hostile nation in times of war or when facing an “invasion or predatory incursion.” Critics argue that the U.S. is not formally at war and question whether Trump’s definition of an “invasion” meets the law’s legal threshold.

As the legal battle unfolds, the courts—including the Supreme Court—will likely decide whether the administration’s actions hold up under scrutiny.

Roberts’ latest statement echoes a similar rebuke in 2018, when he rejected the notion of partisan judges, stating, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” His defense of judicial independence remains unchanged, but with political tensions rising, will his words be enough to shield the courts from further attacks?

‍