WASHINGTON — Just hours after President Donald Trump called for the impeachment of a judge who sought to pause the removal of more than 200 migrants to El Salvador, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement.
“For more than two centuries,” the chief justice said, “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.”
Trump had called the judge, James E. Boasberg, a “Radical Left Lunatic” in a social media post and said he should be impeached. On Saturday, Boasberg ordered the administration to return planes carrying migrants said to be members of a Venezuelan gang to the United States while he considered whether their removal was lawful. The planes did not turn around.
The case has emerged as a flashpoint in a larger debate over presidential power and the role of the courts in reviewing the actions of the executive branch. The chief justice’s statement did not take sides on that debate, and he has often taken a broad view of the president’s authority, notably in his majority opinion in July granting Trump substantial immunity from prosecution.
His statement instead made a modest point. But it came in the face of rising calls for impeachment not just by Trump but also by his network of supporters, which has complained that judges have blocked a series of the president’s initial policy moves.
The correct reaction to a ruling that a party disagrees with, the chief justice wrote, is to file an appeal.
Just weeks ago, Roberts’ point would have been uncontroversial. There is no modern tradition of impeaching judges for their rulings. Just eight federal judges have been impeached, convicted and removed in the history of the country, most for egregious criminal and personal behavior.
It takes just a majority vote in the House of Representatives to impeach a judge or other official. But two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict, meaning its Republican members would need substantial support from Democrats.
That math makes clear that the talk of impeachment is largely performative.
Still, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, said on social media Tuesday that he had filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg, asserting that the judge’s rulings amounted to “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Roberts’ statement Tuesday was reminiscent of two earlier ones.
In 2018, he defended the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary after Trump called a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy “an Obama judge.”
The chief justice said that was a profound misunderstanding of the judicial role.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a statement then. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Two years later, he denounced Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, for comments at a rally outside the Supreme Court.
Schumer, speaking while the court heard arguments in a major abortion case, attacked two of Trump’s appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Schumer said. “You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Roberts condemned those remarks.
“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” he said in a statement. “All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”
Schumer walked his comments back the next day, saying he had meant there would be political consequences.
In his year-end report on the state of the federal judiciary, issued weeks before Trump took office, the chief justice seemed to anticipate some of what was coming.
“Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed,” Roberts wrote. “Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others.”
Trump did not square his attack on Boasberg with comments he made last week while visiting the Justice Department. Then, he complained about people who have criticized judges, declaring that “it has to stop, it has to be illegal, influencing judges.”
In that case, he was complaining about criticisms of Judge Aileen Cannon, who had dismissed one of the criminal cases that had been pending against him.
Later Tuesday, Laura Ingraham, the Fox News host, taped a segment with Trump to air on her nightly show. Ingraham asked the president about the chief justice’s statement. “Well, he didn’t mention my name in the statement,” Trump said. “I just saw it quickly. He didn’t mention my name.”
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
© 2025 The New York Times Company
