Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., called on the House of Representatives Tuesday to impeach Chief Judge James Boasberg after a federal appeals court shut down the judge's contempt investigation of Trump administration officials and labeled it a "clear abuse of discretion." The demand came minutes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling ordering Boasberg to end his probe into whether officials defied his earlier order halting deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
Schmitt, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, posted his call on X shortly after the ruling dropped. Newsmax reported that the Missouri senator framed the appeals court's own language as grounds for removal.
Schmitt wrote on X:
"The D.C. Circuit ruled Boasberg's contempt crusade against Trump officials is an 'improper investigation' and 'clear abuse of discretion.' He tried to imprison Trump officials for deporting Venezuelan gang members. I'm calling on the House: Impeach Rogue Judge Boasberg."
The ruling marks the second time the D.C. Circuit panel has intervened against Boasberg in this dispute. In an earlier ruling, the same panel halted the judge's initial contempt-related actions in the case. Tuesday's decision went further, ordering him to end the probe entirely.
The three-judge panel's majority opinion was written by a judge appointed by President Donald Trump. The majority warned that Boasberg's investigation risked becoming an open-ended review of executive branch decisions on national security and immigration enforcement, territory the appeals court found the district judge had no business occupying.
The New York Post reported that the majority described Boasberg's contempt effort as "intrusive" and a "legal dead end," in addition to calling it a clear abuse of discretion. That language handed Schmitt, and any House member inclined to act, a ready-made set of appellate findings to cite.
A judge appointed by former President Joe Biden dissented. The dissenting opinion argued the ruling could undermine the courts' contempt power and the rule of law. But the dissent did not carry the day, and the majority's order stands.
The broader pattern of Republican efforts to impeach federal judges over Trump policy rulings has been building for months, and Tuesday's appeals court decision gave those efforts fresh ammunition.
The confrontation traces back to March 2025, when the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, some accused of gang ties, to El Salvador. Boasberg issued an emergency order halting the removals and requiring due process. Administration officials allowed the flights to proceed anyway.
That defiance triggered Boasberg's contempt investigation, which the appeals court has now dismantled in two stages. The first intervention halted the judge's initial contempt-related actions. The second, on Tuesday, ordered him to shut the investigation down for good.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche welcomed the decision in his own post on X:
"Today's decision by the DC Circuit should finally end Judge Boasberg's year-long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration."
Blanche's characterization, "year-long campaign", underscores how long the legal standoff has dragged on, consuming Justice Department resources while immigration enforcement remained in limbo.
Schmitt's impeachment call did not land in a vacuum. Breitbart reported that Sen. Bill Hagerty previously urged the House to open impeachment proceedings against Boasberg on separate grounds, accusing the judge of conspiring with Biden-aligned figures to approve surveillance targeting Republican lawmakers, Trump staff, and Trump himself. Sens. Ted Cruz and Schmitt had also backed impeachment calls at that time.
Cruz stated at a press conference: "I am right now calling on the House to impeach Judge Boasberg." That earlier push centered on alleged surveillance-related overreach. Tuesday's call adds a second, distinct set of grievances, the contempt probe, to the impeachment argument.
The growing list of senators calling for Boasberg's removal reflects a broader frustration among conservatives with judges who, in their view, have used the bench to obstruct lawful executive action. Similar accountability debates have surfaced in other contexts, including Sen. Blackburn's call for the Chief Justice to investigate Justice Jackson's conduct at a public event featuring anti-ICE statements.
Federal judges serve during "good behaviour" under the Constitution, and impeachment is the only mechanism for removal. The House would need a simple majority to approve articles of impeachment. A Senate trial would follow, requiring a two-thirds vote to convict and remove the judge from the bench.
No immediate steps toward impeachment proceedings were announced Tuesday. The New York Post noted that while House Republicans could pursue the effort, the Senate would likely lack the two-thirds majority needed to convict. That political reality has not stopped the calls from growing louder, or from gaining new factual footing each time a higher court rebukes Boasberg's conduct.
The ruling itself does not affect Boasberg's ongoing duties as chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He remains on the bench, presiding over cases, a fact that frustrates the senators pressing for his removal.
The question of when judges cross from legitimate oversight into political overreach has become one of the defining tensions of the Trump era. Past episodes, from declassified documents raising new questions about Trump's first impeachment to state-level clashes over judicial conduct, have all tested the same boundary.
The D.C. Circuit's majority did not mince words. Calling the contempt investigation "improper" and an abuse of discretion is among the sharpest rebukes an appellate panel can deliver to a sitting district judge. The majority's warning, that the probe risked becoming an open-ended review of executive branch decisions on national security and immigration enforcement, draws a bright line around the separation of powers.
For the Trump administration, the ruling validates its position that the deportation flights were lawful exercises of executive authority under the Alien Enemies Act, and that a single district judge had no business launching what amounted to a criminal investigation of senior officials for carrying out immigration policy.
For Boasberg's defenders, the dissent's argument, that reining in contempt power weakens the judiciary's ability to enforce its own orders, will remain a talking point. But the dissent lost, and the majority's language is now part of the permanent record.
In Florida, a parallel debate played out when Gov. DeSantis demanded the state House impeach a judge over a separate controversy, a reminder that the impeachment tool, rarely used, is gaining traction across the conservative movement as a response to judicial conduct that elected officials view as lawless.
Just The News reported that the appeals court described Boasberg's proceedings as an improper judicial investigation into "high-level executive branch deliberations." Whether any House member introduces actual articles of impeachment remains to be seen. No such filing has been announced.
Several questions remain unanswered. Which specific contempt-related conduct was Boasberg investigating? What procedural effect does the D.C. Circuit order have beyond ending the probe? And which, if any, House members plan to act on calls from Schmitt, Hagerty, and Cruz?
When an appeals court calls a judge's conduct an abuse of discretion and an improper investigation, and then orders him to stop, the question isn't whether accountability is warranted. It's whether anyone in the House has the nerve to deliver it.
