Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has ignited a firestorm by demanding the impeachment of two federal judges in a bold Senate hearing.
On January 30, 2025, Cruz, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee with deep legal expertise, urged Congress to remove Judges James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman from their posts, citing actions he believes undermine public trust and constitutional principles. The call for impeachment, a rare measure historically taken against only 15 federal judges, often for clear crimes like bribery, emerged during a heated discussion on judicial accountability. Cruz’s push targets Boasberg for approving gag orders in a 2023 investigation and Boardman for a lenient sentence in a high-profile attempted murder case.
Critics of the judges are aligning behind Cruz’s argument that judicial overreach demands accountability, even if the actions fall short of criminality. While impeachment proceedings must begin in the House and require a two-thirds Senate majority to convict—a steep hurdle given the need for bipartisan support—some see this as a necessary stand. Russell Dye, spokesman for the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, noted, “Everything is on the table.”
Dye’s open-ended stance hints at potential action, but let’s not hold our breath for swift justice when partisan lines are drawn tighter than a drum. The controversy with Judge Boasberg stems from 2023 gag orders tied to subpoenas of Republican senators’ phone records during an investigation by former special counsel Jack Smith into the 2020 election and January 6 Capitol riot. These orders blocked senators from immediate notification, a move Cruz argues tramples on their constitutional protections.
Smith and court officials claim Boasberg wasn’t told the targets were members of Congress, and prosecutors often seek such gag orders. But ignorance of the target’s identity hardly absolves a judge of the responsibility to scrutinize requests that could infringe on legislative rights. Rob Luther, a law professor at George Mason University, sharply questioned, “Did Judge Boasberg merely rubber-stamp the requested gag order, or was he willfully blind?”
Luther’s jab cuts to the core: judicial oversight isn’t a suggestion, it’s a duty. Republican senators affected by the subpoenas have decried the violation of their rights, and even if DOJ policy didn’t mandate disclosure of the targets, common sense might have raised a red flag. This isn’t just a procedural hiccup; it’s a breach of trust that fuels skepticism about impartiality in our courts.
Then there’s Judge Deborah Boardman, a Biden appointee, whose sentencing of Sophie Roske—previously Nicholas Roske—to eight years for attempting to murder Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has drawn Cruz’s ire. The Department of Justice sought a 30-year term after Roske pleaded guilty, yet Boardman factored in Roske’s transgender identity and personal challenges, opting for a dramatically lighter penalty. This decision has left many questioning whether justice was served or sidestepped.
Cruz didn’t mince words on this, stating, “My Democrat colleagues on this committee do not get to give great speeches about how opposed they are to violence against the judiciary, and, at the same time, cheer on a judge saying, 'Well, if you attempt to murder a Supreme Court justice, and you happen to be transgender, not a problem.'” That’s a stinging critique, and it lands hard when public safety feels discounted for the sake of social considerations. Personal struggles deserve empathy, but not at the expense of accountability for violent intent.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., pushed back during the hearing, defending the judges with a weary tone: “There was a time when I'd have hoped a Senate Judiciary subcommittee would not be roped into a scheme to amplify pressure and threats against a sitting federal judge.” Nice try, Senator, but deflecting criticism as intimidation dodges the real issue: are these rulings defensible on their merits? The public isn’t asking for witch hunts; they’re asking for judges who prioritize the rule of law over personal or political leanings.
Historically, impeaching a federal judge is like climbing Everest in flip-flops—possible, but not probable. Only 15 judges have faced such proceedings, typically for blatant misconduct like bribery, and Cruz himself acknowledges that non-criminal acts can still justify removal if they erode public trust. His argument is principled, but with a Senate conviction needing Democratic votes, the math looks grimmer than a winter forecast.
Still, Cruz’s broader point resonates: judges aren’t untouchable monarchs. If their decisions consistently undermine constitutional order or public confidence, Congress has a duty to act, no matter how steep the political climb. Impeachment may be a long shot, but ignoring judicial overreach isn’t an option either.
The House Judiciary Committee could kickstart the process, and with GOP control, there’s a chance for momentum. Yet, partisan gridlock in the Senate looms large, making any removal vote more symbolic than successful. It’s a frustrating reality when principle collides with politics.
These cases aren’t just legal disputes; they’re about whether the judiciary can be trusted to uphold fairness over agenda. Boasberg’s gag order approval and Boardman’s sentencing leniency raise valid concerns about whether personal or political biases are creeping into the courtroom. The public deserves better than judges who seem to play fast and loose with foundational protections.
Cruz’s call for impeachment, while unlikely to succeed, sends a clear message: accountability isn’t negotiable. It’s a reminder that even lifetime appointments don’t shield judges from scrutiny when their actions—or inactions—jeopardize the system they swore to protect. Let’s hope this debate sparks a renewed focus on judicial integrity, because without it, trust in our institutions is just a house of cards waiting to fall.
