Democracy's new danger zone: impeaching judges for upholding the law

In recent weeks, we’ve witnessed an alarming and accelerating trend: elected officials brazenly filing articles of impeachment against federal judges — not for corruption or misconduct, but for the “crime” of upholding the law against executive overreach. This represents a profound threat to judicial independence that should concern everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, was targeted for ordering federal agencies to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act before purging transgender health information from government websites.

The act requires government agencies to justify and document major changes to public information — ensuring that data collection and dissemination serve the public interest, not political whims. The rushed removal of information that benefits a vulnerable community violated this basic safeguard.

Yet Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) outrageously claims that Judge Bates’s ruling was “utterly lacking in intellectual honesty and basic integrity.” In reality, Bates’s opinion was a straightforward analysis of longstanding law and practice.

Less than 48 hours later, Ogles was back on the attack, filing articles of impeachment against District of Columbia U.S. District Judge Amir Ali for ordering the administration to restore funding to USAID. In his resolution, Ogles used a classic right-wing dog whistle in using Ali’s Arabic name, arguing the judge’s order was “corrupt” based on spurious and bigoted assertions about the agency’s relief efforts in Syria and Gaza.

Judges Ali and Bates did not issue radical rulings — they simply ordered federal agencies to follow the law.

Judicial impeachment was never intended to punish a judges' determination of law and fact. Of the 15 federal judges impeached in 250 years — only eight of whom have been convicted by the Senate and removed from the bench — the grounds for removal have always involved serious misconduct, not legal disagreements.

Throughout U.S. history, judicial impeachment has been reserved for crimes, bribery and corruption — not for decisions that anger those in power. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist documented, the failed 1804 impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase established the crucial norm that judges should not face removal over their rulings.

Republican lawmakers have similarly moved to impeach Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York and threatened to file against Judge John McConnell of the District of Rhode Island for temporarily halting administration policies on Treasury Department access and federal spending freezes — rulings that upheld clear legal limits on executive power.

These impeachment attempts transform a vital safeguard against corruption into a political weapon against judicial independence. Our constitutional architects deliberately insulated the judiciary to prevent this exact scenario: judges facing professional consequences for applying laws that restrain power.

If judges can be removed merely for upholding established law, judicial independence crumbles. The separation of power that safeguards our republic collapses, leaving all constitutional protections vulnerable to political manipulation.

The gravest threat comes from the executive branch openly declaring war on judicial independence. President Trump’s statement that “maybe we have to look at the judges” is a direct threat from the head of one branch of government against another.

Even more troubling is Elon Musk’s call for “an immediate wave of judicial impeachments,” demanding the removal of judges who rule against his interests. Despite having no elected office or constitutional authority, Musk has positioned himself as an enforcer, pressuring lawmakers to punish judges who rule against his interests.

The pattern is unmistakable: These impeachment efforts don’t target judges based on misconduct or corruption, but on whether their rulings inconvenience those in power. Judges have been singled out for upholding transgender health resources, enforcing government transparency and stopping unlawful funding freezes.

This is not about the rule of law — it’s about punishing judges for applying it.

When judges must look over their shoulders before ruling against the powerful, equal justice becomes impossible. This threatens not abstract principles, but tangible protections for everyday people — from civil rights to consumer protections to environmental safeguards that we all depend on.

The impeachment power was created as a shield to protect democracy from corruption — never as a sword to punish judges who faithfully uphold the law. And yet an unelected billionaire is weaponizing his outsized and inappropriate influence to issue social media decrees against federal judges, with elected officials scrambling to comply. This is not normal and we must not normalize it.

History has shown time and time again that once judicial independence falls, all other rights and liberties quickly follow. The weaponization of judicial impeachment isn’t merely wrong — it represents an existential threat to the American system of government itself.

We must defend our independent judiciary from baseless attacks so it can protect us from abuses of power.

Khadijah M. Silver, JD, MPH, is a supervising attorney for civil rights at Lawyers for Good Government, with expertise in health law and policy.

Topics

American Bar Association backs 'rule of law' after Musk calls for judges to be impeached

The American Bar Association this week rejected attacks on the court system and the legal profession, after billionaire Elon Musk used his X platform to call for the impeachment of judges who have ...
NBC News - 2d
Musk and Republican Lawmakers Pressure Judges with Impeachment Threats

Democrats say the calls to remove judges who block Trump administration initiatives amount to intimidation. Some senior Republicans are also skeptical of the effort.
The New York Times - 4d
Why is America still building houses in climate danger zones?

Developers are constructing more in high-risk areas — illustrating the twin challenges of adapting to severe weather while addressing a housing shortage
Financial Times - Feb. 27
South Korea's Yoon defends his martial law decree as impeachment ruling nears

In a final statement at his impeachment trial, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol defended his martial law decree that plunged the country into chaos as a bid to inform the public of the danger ...
ABC News - Feb. 26
Trump Claims Power to Fire Administrative Law Judges at Will

The Justice Department said a law protecting the officials from arbitrary removal is an unconstitutional intrusion on presidential authority.
The New York Times - Feb. 21
Supreme Court rejects challenges to abortion clinic 'buffer zone' laws that restrict protesters

The Supreme Court declined to consider overturning a 24-year-old precedent that upheld "buffer zone" laws limiting how close protesters can get to abortion clinic entrances.
NBC News - Feb. 24
Republican files article of impeachment against judge who ordered agencies to restore scrubbed data

Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) on Monday introduced an impeachment resolution against a federal judge who ordered federal health agencies to temporarily restore online datasets scrubbed as part of the ...
The Hill - Feb. 24
New law to tackle goalkeeper time-wasting approved

A goalkeeper holding the ball for more than eight seconds will be punished with a corner for the opposition from this summer.
BBC News - 5d
The Papers: 'PM lays down peace demand' and 'New breed of danger dog'

A mix of stories lead Sunday's papers, with a focus of the prime minister's upcoming trip to the US.
BBC News - Feb. 23