During an unprecedented clash between the executive and judicial branches, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed suggestions of impeachment for judges just moments after U.S. President Donald Trump called for removing one judge who had overturned his immigration policies.
The criticism from the head of the Supreme Court highlights the disputes surrounding the recent trips. Venezuelan Immigrants have become entangled in a constitutional conflict between two of the nation's most influential leaders.
Roberts stated that for over two hundred years, it has been clear that impeachment is not suitable for addressing disputes about a judicial ruling. He added that the standard appellate review procedure is designed for this objective.
Are you looking for insights into the most significant issues and global developments? Find your answers here. SCMP Knowledge Our latest platform features handpicked content including explainers, FAQs, analyses, and infographics, all provided by our prestigious team.
The uncommon comment was issued mere hours following a social media update from Trump , who described US District Judge James E. Boasberg as an unelected "troublemaker and agitator". Boasberg had issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th-century law.
He came up empty-handed! My triumph was decisive due to various factors, with combatting unlawful migration likely being the foremost reason behind this unprecedented win,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I’m merely carrying out the will of the electorate. That judge, much like several biased judges I’ve had to face, ought to be removed from office!!!”
Despite Trump’s consistent criticism of judges—particularly when they curb his attempts to increase presidential authority—his recent statement intensified his dispute with a judicial system that has served as one of the primary checks on his ambitious yet forceful policies. impeachment typically occurs solely under circumstances involving severe ethical breaches or criminal behavior.
The dynamic between Roberts and Trump has evolved over time. During Trump's initial term, Roberts stressed the importance of judicial independence, objecting when the president referred to a judge who overturned his immigrant protection policies as an "Obama judge" in 2018.
Prior to Trump being inaugurated for his second term, Roberts cautioned against threats to the judicial system and urged that all court rulings, including those not well-received, should be upheld.
The chief justice played a significant part in an important judgment last year which stated that presidents possess extensive immunity from criminal proceedings. This ruling assisted Trump in evading one of his legal challenges. criminal trials Before the election that put him back in the White House.
Earlier this month, Trump gave Roberts a warm greeting, expressing gratitude and stating, "I won’t forget," during the occasion when the justices were present at his speech before a joint session of Congress. He later mentioned that he was thankful to Roberts for administering the oath at his inauguration.
The most recent conflict concerning the judicial system arose following a legal challenge to his use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This act has previously been invoked just three times throughout U.S. history, each instance occurring during officially declared congressional wars.
Trump issued a proclamation that the law was newly in effect due to what he claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. His government is paying El Salvador to detain suspected members of the gang. .
Boasberg, who was selected by the previous president Barack Obama , held a hearing on Monday to address what he referred to as "potential disregard" of his directive when two deportation flights proceeded to El Salvador even though he had verbally instructed them to return to the United States.
The Trump administration’s legal team argued that Boasenberg's written directive wasn't clear, whereas an attorney representing the American Civil Liberties Union stated, “I believe we’re nearing a constitutional crisis.”
The Justice Department is additionally seeking in court to have Boasberg reassigned from the case.
The Constitution grants the House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority, the authority to impeach a judge with just a simple majority vote. However, similar to a presidential impeachment, removing said judge necessitates a two-thirds majority approval from the Senate.
The president's most recent social media update places him closer to supporters like the wealthy businessman. Elon Musk , who have issued comparable demands.
"What we're witnessing is an effort by one governmental body to bully another into not carrying out its constitutionally mandated role. This poses a clear danger to the autonomy of the judiciary," stated Professor Marin Levy from Duke University School of Law, whose expertise lies in federal courts, via email.
Just one day prior, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated: "I haven't heard the president discuss the impeachment of judges."
According to the US courts' regulatory authority, merely 15 judges have faced impeachment throughout the country's history, with only eight being actually removed from their positions.
The most recent judicial impeachment occurred in 2010 when G. Thomas Porteous Jr., from New Orleans, faced charges for accepting bribes followed by lying about his actions. The Senate found him guilty and subsequently expelled him from his position in December 2010.
There has been an increase in calls for the removal of judges as Trump's extensive policy initiatives encounter resistance from the judicial system. At least two congressmembers have stated online their intention to propose articles of impeachment against Boasberg.
The House Republicans have already submitted Articles of Impeachment against two additional judges, Amir Ali and Paul Engelmayer, due to their decisions in legal cases related to Trump.
Leavitt is among three administrative officials facing a lawsuit from the Associated Press based on violations of the First and Fifth amendments.
According to the news agency, the trio is penalizing the Associated Press due to editorial choices they disagree with. The White House says Associated Press is not following an executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America .
More Articles from SCMP
The US must work with China on ‘deliverables’ if it wants Xi-Trump summit: analysts
Banker from Hong Kong acquitted of allegedly molesting his female colleague
Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer Xpeng reduces its losses as revenues increase by 23%.
The article initially appeared on the South China Morning Post (www.scmp.com), which is the premier source for news coverage of China and Asia.
Copyright © 2025. South ChinaMorning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.