House Republicans are reigniting a bold campaign to hold federal judges accountable for rulings that challenge President Donald Trump’s policies.
Conservative lawmakers, with renewed backing from Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., are pushing impeachment efforts against judges they accuse of overstepping their authority. The focus has sharpened on U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, criticized for decisions on immigration policies and other key Trump initiatives.
Johnson signaled support during a press conference on Wednesday, while Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., confirmed the Speaker’s stance after a conversation on the House floor Thursday evening.
Supporters contend that this move is a necessary check on judicial overreach, while critics decry it as an assault on the independence of a co-equal branch of government. The debate has reignited tensions over how far Congress should go to counter court rulings that clash with executive priorities.
Efforts to impeach judges aren’t new—last year, Rep. Ogles led attempts to target U.S. District Judge John Bates and Judge Theodore Chuang over rulings against Trump’s executive orders. Those resolutions stalled, as House GOP leaders then deemed impeachment impractical compared to legislative fixes, Fox News reported.
One such alternative, a bill by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., aimed to curb district judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions. It passed the House on party lines last year but languished in the Senate. Johnson and others initially favored this approach over impeachment proceedings.
That stance shifted this week when Johnson openly endorsed pursuing impeachment, specifically naming Judge Boasberg as a target. Boasberg’s rulings, particularly on immigration policies involving deportations to countries like El Salvador, have drawn sharp Republican criticism.
Republicans have also taken issue with Boasberg’s approval of actions tied to the seizure of GOP lawmakers’ phone records in a past probe by former special counsel Jack Smith. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, who spearheaded a resolution against Boasberg last year, welcomed Johnson’s recent comments. Gill noted the resolution gained two new House GOP co-sponsors this week.
“I'm thrilled to see the speaker get on board,” Gill said. “I think his leadership will be crucial in getting this passed.” His optimism reflects a growing momentum among conservatives who see this as a defining stand against judicial activism.
Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, of the House Judiciary Committee, echoed this sentiment, arguing the public demands accountability. “I think there's more of an appetite and less of a hesitation than there was earlier in the Congress,” Gooden stated. He suggested the timing is right to push forward without distractions.
Not all Republicans are fully on board with the impeachment strategy. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., expressed doubts on Thursday about whether the effort could clear the committee process before a full House vote.
House GOP Conference Vice Chair Blake Moore, R-Utah, offered cautious support for considering impeachment as a tool but emphasized Issa’s bill as a more concrete solution. He argued for moving beyond political posturing to actionable policy reforms.
Democrats and other detractors view this as an overreach that threatens the judiciary’s autonomy. They argue Congress should respect the separation of powers rather than target judges for unfavorable rulings.
On immigration rulings, particularly those involving policies to relocate migrants rather than detain them domestically, the stakes are high for Trump’s agenda. Republicans see judges like Boasberg as obstacles to enforcing border security and executive authority. The question remains whether impeachment is the right tool to address these disputes.
Supporters insist Congress has the constitutional right to act when it perceives judicial abuse, while opponents warn of a slippery slope that could undermine democratic checks. As this effort unfolds, it’s clear the clash between branches of government will only intensify. The outcome may shape how far lawmakers can go to challenge court decisions they deem out of step with national priorities.
