Congress wants to impeach judges instead of doing its job
- Share via
Some Republicans want U.S. District Judge James Boasberg removed from the bench for allegedly interfering with the president’s authority — under the Constitution and the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — to deport members of a Venezuelan gang.
Texas Rep. Brandon Gill and several colleagues introduced articles of impeachment charging that Boasberg violated his oath of office by “knowingly and willfully” using his “judicial position to advance political gain while interfering with the President’s constitutional prerogatives and enforcement of the rule of law.”
This is ridiculous. For starters, there is zero evidence Boasberg “knowingly and willfully” violated his oath, never mind that he acted in pursuit of “political gain.” Moreover, even if the House managed to pass articles of impeachment against Boasberg, nobody thinks two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict. At best, this is theater; at worst it’s an attempt to intimidate judges so they stop scrutinizing Donald Trump’s deportation efforts.
President Trump is questioning the impartiality of the federal judge who blocked his plans to deport Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador.
And not just deportation. Republicans have introduced articles of impeachment against more than a half-dozen judges for ruling against Trump on a number of fronts.
But the war on Boasberg is the most intense and significant.
A quick recap. The Trump administration deported more than 200 people, delivering them to an El Salvador prison. Without providing much in the way of evidence, the government says most of them are part of a Venezuelan gang. The president claims the authority to do all this under the 1798 Enemy Aliens Act, which is one of the components of the notorious Alien and Sedition Acts. Indeed, the Enemy Aliens Act is the only component of the sedition acts that hasn’t been repealed or allowed to expire.
The 1798 law says that “whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government,” the president can, after a formal proclamation of such an emergency, remove “all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” over the age of 14.
The families of two Venezuelans deported to El Salvador say the Trump administration wrongly branded them as Tren de Aragua gang members.
On March 15, Trump issued a proclamation asserting that the gang Tren de Aragua is a foreign terrorist organization that is “closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime.”
We aren’t at war with Venezuela last I looked, nor do I buy that Tren de Aragua is an invader controlled by a foreign government waging war on the U.S. But on the latter, perhaps the administration has better evidence than it has been willing to provide.
For argument’s sake, let’s say the gang meets the criteria of the Enemy Aliens Act. In that case, I have no first-order objection to a policy of arresting, imprisoning or deporting proven members of Tren de Aragua.
The key issue is whether a judge can scrutinize the president’s actions under the Enemy Aliens Act (including the arguably crucial question of whether or not the government is deporting who it says it’s deporting). Gill and the Trump administration say no. And any attempt to do so renders Boasberg and any other magistrate a “rogue judge.”
It’s a local threat to some, and, in President Trump’s words, constitutes a full-on ‘invasion.’
It’s noteworthy that the smartest defenses of the administration do not necessarily contend that what Trump is doing is legal or constitutional. Rather, defenders hold that scrutinizing the president’s action is a “political question.” Under the so-called political question doctrine there are some issues, particularly pertaining to national security, that are simply not justiciable — that is, the courts rightly stay away from them. For instance, Congress hasn’t issued a formal declaration of war since World War II, but the courts have not ruled that subsequent wars were unconstitutional.
I am very skeptical of the political-question defense in this case, but it is not an unserious argument. If Venezuela or any other country launched a surprise attack on the United States, I wouldn’t want the courts to monkey-wrench our prompt response.
At the same time, there’s a reason why the Enemy Aliens Act has only been used — and abused — during declared wars. If you’re not troubled by the idea that a president — any president — can simply assert that we’re in a war, without much evidence, and start deporting or imprisoning people, possibly including American citizens, without due process, I question your dedication to the Constitution and even your patriotism.
President Trump is escalating his attacks on the federal judiciary by calling for the impeachment of a judge who has tried to block his deportations.
But that doesn’t automatically mean the judiciary is the right institution to stop the president or empower him. That’s Congress’ job.
Congress doesn’t have to rely on the last surviving relic of a package of laws that were reviled by Jefferson and Madison and discredited. It could write new ones. It could clarify what the president can or can’t do. It could even declare war on Venezuela or Tren de Aragua — that would clear things up in a hurry.
In short, Congress could take its role as the first branch of government seriously.
It’s grotesque constitutional malpractice for legislators to attack judges trying to determine what the Constitution and the law allow while booing from the cheap seats. It’s fine to argue that the judiciary overplays its role as a check on the executive, but I’m grateful for judges when Congress refuses to play any role other than spectator — or heckler.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that Republican efforts to impeach Judge James Boasberg lack credible evidence of judicial misconduct, characterizing the push as “theater” or intimidation tactics to shield Trump’s deportation policies from scrutiny[2][6]. Goldberg emphasizes that impeachment is not a legitimate response to judicial rulings, citing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ rare public rebuke of such efforts[2][4].
- It contends that courts have a constitutional duty to review executive actions, including Trump’s unprecedented use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, particularly when due process rights are at stake[1][3]. The article notes that Boasberg’s rulings stressed the need for individualized hearings to prevent wrongful deportations, drawing parallels to legal safeguards for WWII-era detainees[3][5].
- Goldberg criticizes Congress for shirking its legislative responsibilities, arguing that lawmakers should clarify immigration and national security statutes instead of attacking judges who interpret existing laws[6][8]. He highlights the irony of relying on a relic of the Alien and Sedition Acts—a law widely criticized by founding figures like Jefferson and Madison—to justify deportations[8].
Different views on the topic
- The Trump administration and House Republicans assert that Boasberg overstepped his authority by blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, which they claim grants the president “sole and unreviewable discretion” in national security matters[1][2][6]. They argue the judiciary lacks jurisdiction to second-guess the executive’s determination of an “invasion” by foreign actors like the Tren de Aragua gang[2][7].
- Supporters of the deportations frame them as critical to public safety, with officials like Attorney General Pam Bondi claiming the targeted individuals pose direct threats to Americans despite acknowledging some had no criminal records[1][3]. The administration has defended its defiance of court orders by asserting flights were already airborne over international waters, rendering judicial intervention moot[7][5].
- Legal defenders of Trump’s approach invoke the “political question doctrine,” contending that courts should defer to the executive branch on matters of foreign policy and wartime authority, even in the absence of a declared war[3][5]. Some Republican lawmakers have proposed legislative fixes, such as curbing nationwide injunctions, rather than impeaching judges[4][6].
