Curbing Judicial Obstruction with Impeachment

The judiciary’s independence is sacrosanct, but it was never meant to be an unchecked autocracy. While Article III grants lifetime tenure to federal judges contingent on “good Behaviour,” it does not render them immune to consequences when they systematically abuse their power. Today, the increasing use of nationwide injunctions by activist judges has become a favored weapon of the Left to obstruct President Trump’s duly enacted policies, often without a clear constitutional or statutory basis. If unchecked, this trend threatens the balance of power between the branches of government. The Founders provided a remedy for judicial misconduct: impeachment. While removal by the Senate may be politically impossible, the process itself—lengthy, costly, and reputationally damaging—can serve as an effective deterrent against overreach. Republicans must be willing to wield impeachment strategically, not necessarily to remove but to punish and deter judges who act as unelected policymakers.

Hamilton, in Federalist No. 81, made clear that impeachment was intended as a check on judges who engage in “a series of deliberate usurpations” of the authority of the other branches. Judges who repeatedly issue nationwide injunctions against the executive branch are precisely such usurpers. A nationwide injunction is, in effect, a judicial veto on the president’s agenda. It allows a single unelected judge—often forum-shopped by left-wing litigants—to impose their policy preferences over the entire nation, circumventing the democratic process. While the Supreme Court has signaled skepticism toward this practice, lower courts continue to wield it aggressively.

A strategy of impeachment, even if the Senate does not convict, can curb this judicial activism. The moment a judge is impeached by the House, their professional life is consumed by defending their record. They must lawyer up, face grueling hearings, and endure the stain of impeachment on their legacy. Historically, even the threat of impeachment has influenced judicial behavior. In 1996, federal judge Harold Baer Jr. reversed his own controversial decision after bipartisan calls for his impeachment gained traction. Impeachment, therefore, serves as a powerful mechanism of accountability even without removal.

Critics may argue that impeachment should be reserved for criminal misconduct, but this is a narrow and ahistorical interpretation. The Constitution defines impeachable offenses as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term the Founders deliberately left broad to encompass abuses of power. Gerald Ford once quipped that an impeachable offense is “whatever a majority of the House considers it to be at a given moment in history.” This flexibility is precisely why impeachment remains an essential tool. When a judge repeatedly and willfully obstructs the president’s ability to govern through legally dubious nationwide injunctions, that judge has violated the public trust and warrants impeachment proceedings.

Moreover, the process of impeachment serves an important signaling function. Judges observing their peers face impeachment for nationwide injunctions will be less inclined to issue such orders themselves. A judiciary that fears political backlash will be more restrained in inserting itself into policy disputes. While Democrats have normalized lawfare against Trump—weaponizing indictments and civil suits to exhaust his political viability—Republicans have largely failed to adopt similar tactics. Impeachment, in this context, is not an abuse of power but a measured response to judicial excesses that threaten constitutional governance.

Historically, judicial impeachments have been rare but impactful. The impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, while unsuccessful, helped delineate the boundaries of judicial partisanship. More recent examples, such as the impeachment and removal of Judge Walter Nixon for perjury, demonstrate that the process remains viable when misconduct is clear. While current political realities make Senate convictions unlikely, the mere act of impeachment puts judges on notice. Judges are not above scrutiny. If they wish to issue sweeping injunctions that override the executive branch, they should be prepared to defend their decisions under the harsh spotlight of an impeachment inquiry.

To be clear, this is not an argument for impeaching any judge who rules against a conservative policy. The standard should be a demonstrable pattern of activist rulings, particularly those that extend beyond traditional judicial authority to halt executive actions nationwide. Congress must establish a clear framework: if a judge issues multiple nationwide injunctions in cases where statutory or constitutional justification is weak, that judge becomes a legitimate target for impeachment. This is not a partisan weapon but a constitutional safeguard against judicial imperialism.

Republicans must recognize that they are engaged in a political struggle where only one side is playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules. If Democrats can launch impeachment proceedings against Trump on flimsy grounds, there is no reason Republicans should hesitate to hold unelected judges accountable for egregious abuses of power. The Constitution provides the tool. It is time to use it. The judiciary must be reminded that their role is to interpret the law—not to dictate policy for an entire nation. Impeachment, wielded strategically, can restore that proper balance.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.