Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com
Washington — In a notable response, Chief Justice John Roberts publicly defended federal judges who have issued rulings unfavorable to the Trump administration, stating that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement” with judicial decisions.
Roberts emphasized that this principle has been well-established for over 200 years, insisting that the judiciary’s appellate review process is designed for addressing disputes regarding court decisions. The statement, disseminated through the Supreme Court’s public information office, underscores the long-standing tradition of judicial independence.
This assertion follows President Trump’s criticism of federal judge James Boasberg, who recently blocked the administration from utilizing the Alien Enemies Act to detain noncitizens. On Saturday, Boasberg ordered that plans carrying 261 individuals intended for Central America must return to the United States. The administration had accused 137 passengers on the flight of having connections to the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, leading them to remove these individuals under the wartime law. Despite Boasberg’s ruling, reports emerged that two of those planes landed in El Salvador, raising questions about compliance with the court’s order.
In his social media post, Trump labeled Boasberg as a “Radical Left Lunatic” and called for his impeachment, attacking the judge’s legitimacy by highlighting his appointment by former President Obama and questioning the outcomes of recent elections.
Trump’s comments represent an escalation in a series of attacks targeting judges involved in legal challenges against his administration’s policies. Numerous judges have mandated pauses on various actions proposed by the Trump administration while legal matters are addressed, drawing ire from the president’s supporters and further calls for impeachment from Trump’s allies.
The removal of federal judges occurs only through impeachment by the House followed by a Senate conviction. Historically, only 15 judges have faced impeachment in the U.S., with the last instance occurring in 2010, and eight of those judges were subsequently removed from office.
Elon Musk, a close advisor to Trump, has frequently taken to social media to advocate for the impeachment of judges he perceives as biased, labeling them as “evil.” Musk has articulated that there is an ongoing threat to democracy due to what he describes as radical left activists masquerading as judges, suggesting punitive measures should be taken against judicial decisions he finds egregious.
In Congress, some Republican members have introduced impeachment resolutions targeting specific judges based on their rulings during the early phases of court cases affecting Trump’s policies.
Against the backdrop of these developments, two judges with Republican appointments expressed their concerns last week regarding the implications of such attacks on judicial independence, citing the importance of maintaining an autonomous judiciary to uphold the system of government that relies on three distinct branches. Judge Richard Sullivan from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit emphasized that the integrity of the judiciary is essential for a functioning democracy. Judge Jeffrey Sutton from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit lamented the attacks on judges as a detrimental trend that undermines judicial independence.
Roberts has previously addressed the significance of an independent judiciary, reaffirming this stance in his year-end report for 2024, which outlined threats to judicial impartiality, including violence, intimidation, spreading of misinformation, and the challenge of complying with legitimate court rulings.
This statement from Roberts is relatively rare, highlighting how critical he views the preservation of judicial independence. It parallels past remarks made in 2018 when he refuted Trump’s labeling of certain judges based on their political affiliations, asserting that judges serve a higher purpose than partisan identity.
Source
www.cbsnews.com