In a rare public statement, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has forcefully rejected former President Donald Trump’s call for the impeachment of a federal judge over a judicial ruling. The statement, issued just hours after Trump’s remarks, reinforces the long-standing principle that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions, emphasizing the independence of the judiciary in a democratic society.
On March 14, 2025, Trump took to his social media platform to attack Judge James E. Boasberg, a U.S. District Court judge, calling him a “Radical Left Lunatic” and demanding his impeachment. The criticism came after Judge Boasberg ruled to temporarily halt the deportation of over 200 migrants to El Salvador, citing concerns about due process and human rights implications.
Trump’s post, laden with inflammatory language, accused Boasberg of acting politically rather than judicially. The former president’s remarks are consistent with his long-standing pattern of attacking judges who issue rulings contrary to his policy positions, often framing the judiciary as a partisan obstacle rather than an independent arbiter of the law.
Chief Justice Roberts, who rarely makes public statements outside of court rulings, swiftly responded to Trump’s comments. In his statement, Roberts reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, stressing that impeachment should not be weaponized against judges simply for rendering decisions that may be unpopular with political leaders.
“For more than two centuries,” Roberts stated, “it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”
This statement underscores the principle that the judicial system has built-in mechanisms—such as appeals and higher court reviews—to handle disagreements with rulings. Impeachment, on the other hand, is a constitutional measure designed for cases of serious misconduct, not for penalizing judges for their legal interpretations.
Roberts’ recent rebuke of Trump’s comments echoes a similar defense of judicial independence he made in 2018. During Trump’s presidency, he repeatedly clashed with the judiciary over rulings that obstructed his policies. In one instance, after a federal judge ruled against Trump’s restrictive asylum policies, the former president dismissed the ruling by labeling the judge an “Obama judge.”
Roberts responded with a firm rejection of the notion that judges are politically partisan appointees:
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. 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.”
This 2018 statement, much like the one in response to Trump’s latest attack on Judge Boasberg, sought to emphasize the integrity of the judicial branch and its role as a check on political power.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances designed to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful. The judiciary plays a critical role in this system by interpreting laws and ensuring that government actions comply with constitutional principles.
A core tenet of judicial independence is that judges should not be subject to political pressure or retaliation for their rulings. This ensures that they can make decisions based on legal merit rather than fear of reprisal from elected officials. The framers of the Constitution deliberately made federal judges lifetime appointees to insulate them from political influence, allowing them to rule impartially.
Trump’s calls for the impeachment of judges who rule against his interests pose a direct threat to this independence. If political leaders could remove judges simply because they dislike their rulings, the judiciary would cease to function as an impartial institution and instead become an extension of political power.
Impeachment is a constitutional mechanism intended to remove judges who engage in serious misconduct, such as bribery, corruption, or ethical violations. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior,” meaning they can only be removed for significant breaches of judicial ethics or criminal behavior.
Historically, only a handful of federal judges have been impeached and removed from office. The process requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives to impeach and a two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict and remove. Simply disagreeing with a judge’s ruling does not meet the constitutional threshold for impeachment.
Roberts’ statement serves as a reminder that legal disagreements should be resolved through established legal channels, such as the appeals process, rather than through threats of removal.
Roberts’ rebuke of Trump’s comments has drawn mixed reactions across the political spectrum. Legal experts and advocacy groups have largely supported the chief justice’s stance, arguing that Trump’s attacks undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary and erode public trust in democratic institutions.
“The judiciary is not a political pawn,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law scholar. “Trump’s rhetoric is dangerous because it seeks to delegitimize any ruling that does not align with his personal or political interests. The courts exist to uphold the law, not to serve the whims of politicians.”
However, some Trump allies have defended his remarks, claiming that certain judges exhibit ideological bias in their rulings. Conservative commentator Mark Levin argued that “liberal activist judges do, in fact, legislate from the bench,” and that Trump’s frustration with the courts is justified.
Despite these political debates, Roberts’ statement remains a firm affirmation of the judiciary’s role as an independent branch of government.
Trump’s ongoing attacks on the judiciary raise concerns about the potential erosion of judicial independence in the U.S. democracy. If political leaders succeed in normalizing the idea that judges should be punished for their rulings, it could have lasting consequences for the rule of law.
A judiciary that bows to political pressure loses its ability to act as a check on government overreach. History has shown that authoritarian regimes often undermine judicial independence as a means of consolidating power. The U.S. must remain vigilant in preserving the autonomy of its courts to maintain a functional democracy.
Chief Justice Roberts’ statement is a critical reaffirmation of the judiciary’s independence at a time when political pressures threaten to undermine its legitimacy. By standing firm against calls for impeachment over legal disagreements, Roberts reinforces the principles that have guided the American judicial system for over two centuries.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ response to Trump’s impeachment calls serves as an important defense of judicial independence. His statement not only rebukes the notion that judges should face removal over rulings but also underscores the broader importance of an impartial judiciary in a democratic society. The judiciary’s ability to function without fear of political retaliation is essential to maintaining the rule of law and the constitutional balance of power. As political tensions continue to test the resilience of democratic institutions, Roberts’ message stands as a crucial reminder that the courts must remain independent, fair, and free from undue influence.
