Judge James Boasberg is facing impeachment proceedings after House Republicans challenged his authority to halt President Trump’s deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members. Boasberg ordered that flights carrying alleged gang members be returned, citing the accused’s lack of legal recourse. The Trump administration chose to ignore the judge’s order to return the planes. Republicans are divided on strategy, with some pursuing impeachment and others supporting legislative limitations on judicial power.
Constitutional Power Struggle
House Republicans, led by Texas Rep. Brandon Gill, have launched an unprecedented effort to impeach U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after he blocked deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members. Gill, joined by 16 co-sponsors, claims Boasberg overstepped judicial boundaries by interfering with President Trump’s immigration enforcement actions. The impeachment resolution represents an escalation in the ongoing battle between the executive branch’s immigration agenda and judicial oversight of constitutional boundaries.
At the center of the controversy is Boasberg’s ruling that stopped the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime statute, to deport alleged gang members without due process. According to court documents, the judge found the deportees were denied basic legal protections, ordering the government to return flights already in progress. The Trump administration refused to comply, setting up a direct confrontation between the judicial and executive branches.
BREAKING: Rep. Brandon Gill is filing Articles of Impeachment this week against Judge James Boasberg who blocked President Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. pic.twitter.com/x52egdUPTc
— Ian Jaeger (@IanJaeger29) March 16, 2025
Divided Republican Response
Republican lawmakers have split on how to address what they perceive as judicial interference with Trump’s border security initiatives. While Gill and his allies pursue impeachment, Senate Republican leadership has expressed skepticism about this approach. Senate Majority Leader John Thune emphasized the normal appeals process, stating, “At the end of the day, there is a process, and there’s an appeals process. And, you know, I suspect that’s ultimately how this will get handled.”
“The federal judges trying to stop President Trump’s policies are a “threat to democracy.”” – Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)
Other Republicans, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, are instead backing legislation to restrict the power of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Rep. Darrell Issa’s “No Rogue Rulings Act” aims to prevent a single federal judge from blocking national policy. This legislative approach has gained traction with lawmakers concerned about judicial overreach but wary of the high bar required for judicial impeachment, which requires a House majority and a two-thirds Senate vote.
Would you agree AG Bondi doesn't have to provide Judge Boasberg any info on the deportation flight of TDA gang members to El Salvador, since articles of Impeachment were filed today on him by Rep Brandon Gill pic.twitter.com/UTJ2meVHy5
— @Chicago1Ray 🇺🇸 (@Chicago1Ray) March 18, 2025
Constitutional Counterarguments
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke of the impeachment effort, stating, “For more than two centuries, 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.” His intervention underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential threat to judicial independence that critics see in the impeachment resolution.
Democrats have united in opposition to the impeachment push, with Rep. Jamie Raskin characterizing it as “an act of outlaw tyranny, not constitutional government.” Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett warned against normalizing the violation of court orders, stating, “The idea that anyone should be given permission to violate a court order, no matter who you are? You don’t have that right… At the end of the day, if you have a branch of government that says, ‘I’m going to ignore you because I am above you,’ then that is a problem.”
Historical Context and Political Implications
Judicial impeachments are exceedingly rare in American history, with only 15 federal judges ever impeached and fewer than half of those removed from office. The Boasberg impeachment effort faces steep odds of success, which Gill acknowledges, describing his action as sending a message rather than expecting the judge’s removal. The conflict reflects broader tensions about immigration enforcement and the proper role of judges in reviewing executive actions on border security.
“Let me remind you that one of the biggest issues of the 2024 election, and the reason why so many people voted for President Trump, is because he was going to secure our borders and deport violent, illegal aliens out of our communities”—Gil
Even as the impeachment effort proceeds in the House, the Trump administration continues to challenge Boasberg’s ruling through conventional legal channels, with appeals working their way through higher courts. The conflict underscores the tensions between fulfilling campaign promises on immigration enforcement and operating within constitutional boundaries as interpreted by the federal judiciary.