The threats of prosecution and impeachment of federal judges

President Trump's first 100 days in office have been a whirlwind of executive orders directed at expanding executive power and dominance. Many are feeling the effects of Trump's unilateral imposition of tariffs upon countries like Canada, Mexico, and China, as well as the imposition of punitive, reciprocal tariffs. But Trump's first 100 days have notably seen the President act against, and in clear defiance of, both the judicial branch and the Constitution, calling for the prosecution and impeachment of some members of our federal judiciary that do not go along with his executive orders.

There are now over 200 different lawsuits in federal courts across the United States against Trump's executive orders, actions, and decisions. Federal judges have blocked many of these executive order's, including those that involve issues of fundamental civil rights. Trump and his administration have undermined and attacked the judicial branch, not only to discredit the judiciary as a whole but to intimidate judges against making decisions that would impede the President's unilateral exercise of executive authority.

On March 18th, Trump called for the impeachment of Washington D.C. District Judge James Boasberg, who ordered a hold on Trump's efforts to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals. In response to Judge Boasberg's hold, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, telling his millions of followers, "This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!" To date, the Trump administration has refused to return any deported people and has deported over 130,000 people alone during his first 100 days, according to statistics provided by his administration. Trump attempted to expedite the expulsion of migrants under the 1789 Alien Enemies Act (AEA), which had previously only been used during periods of wartime. This administration, however, used this Act to justify the expulsion of thousands of immigrants without legal hearings and without due process, with Trump telling reporters on April 22nd, "We're getting them out, and a judge can't say, 'No, you have to have a trial'... We're going to have a very dangerous country if we're not allowed to do what we're entitled to do." Trump's calls to impeach Judge Boasberg were met with criticism, including from Chief Justice John Roberts, who stated, "For more than two centuries, 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." Judge Boasberg is only one of many judges the administration is targeting, including judges throughout the country.

On May 1st, District Judge Fernando Rodriguez, a Trump appointee, ruled that the AEA cannot be used to deport people as the administration's conduct clearly exceeded the scope of the statute, and was contrary to the clear language of the act. On the same day, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to strip legal protections (Temporary Protected Statuses) from over one million Venezuelans and Haitians after District Judge Ed Chen (NDCA) ordered a pause on the plan.

One of Trump's advisors, Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency, has stated on his social media platform X that "there needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments, not just one." District Judge Paul Engelmayer halted Musk's DOGE from acquiring Treasury Department information. Others besides Musk have called for the impeachment of District Judge John Bates for issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring federal health agencies to restore online datasets that had been ordered to be taken down. There were also talks of impeachment of District Judge John J. McConnell, who granted a TRO on a federal spending freeze. Vice President J.D. Vance has also commented that federal judges do not have jurisdiction to stop the president from exercising his authority in office. The House of Representatives has now named several judges for potential articles of Impeachment, which is solely designed to intimidate our judges.

Within the past week, May 1, 20 former federal judges started a Judiciary Preservation Group to defend the federal court system and save our democracy. The former judges are from all over the country and have been appointed by different presidents from both the Democrat and Republican parties. The JPG includes federal judges Andrew Guilford, George King and Jeremy Fogel from California, all pledging to "uphold the independence of the judicial branch."

The end of Trump's first 100 days has shown that the administration's threats against judges are very serious. On April 25th, the FBI arrested Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan, who is now facing two felony counts for allegedly obstructing a U.S. agency and concealing Eduardo Flores-Ruiz to avoid arrest. According to the allegations, she allowed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit the courtroom through a back entrance. The press reports that Attorney General Pam Bondi characterized this arrest as a response to a flawed judiciary, stating, "What has happened to our judiciary is beyond me." When Bondi was asked what her message was to judges like Dugan who were obstructing her efforts to make the country safer, Bondi responded, "We are going to prosecute you, and we are prosecuting you."

Trump and his administration have done more than just undermine the judicial system and threaten judges. They have acted in blatant defiance of the Supreme Court. On April 10th, the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had filed suit against the Trump administration for his deportation to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia was removed from the United States on March 15 as part of a series of hundreds of deportations despite being granted "withholding of removal" in 2019, as well as legal working papers. Moreover, the Trump administration admitted after that Abrego Garcia had been deported due to an error. Trump officials have ignored the Supreme Court's order to return Abrego Garcia on the grounds that such a decision would have to be made by the Salvadoran government. Later, however, Trump suggested that he could facilitate the release of Abrego Garcia to the United States with a simple phone call to the President of El Salvador, but indicated that he would not do so, telling an ABC interviewer, "If he [Abrego Garcia] were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that. But he is not." The refusal to comply with the Supreme Court's order sets a dangerous precedent that the executive branch can bypass the judicial branch and flagrantly avoid the system of checks and balances in our Constitution. Despite the Trump administration's best efforts to undermine the courts, many judges, such as District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland, have stood up for our Constitution. Regarding Abrego Garcia, Judge Xinis imposed new deadlines for answers from the Trump administration.

Trump's attacks have extended beyond the judiciary. He has directed attacks in the form of executive orders targeting individual law firms that have represented clients against Trump's or the administration's interests. Some major law firms have fallen into compliance with the executive orders and now at least nine different firms have pledged to give almost $1 billion in pro bono legal work towards causes determined by Trump and his delegates. This is all done by executive orders which provide that certain firms will be blocked from federal buildings and from entering federal contracts if they do not comply.

The Trump administration's behavior towards federal judges and the legal establishment at large during his first 100 days can only be characterized as vindictive, combative, and totally contrary to our Constitution. Trump, his administration, and his friend's attacks against the judiciary pose very serious implications for the constitutional separation of powers. The future of our country and the third branch -the judiciary-are suffering a serious blow to our country's democracy. If we lose our judiciary, we lose our country, one has only to read the history of Europe in the early 1930s when, among other voices, the judiciary was silenced; it resulted in World War II and a disaster for millions of people.