(José Niño, Headline USA) On Monday, an Arizona congressman introduced legislation aimed at removing the federal judge responsible for blocking President Donald Trump’s attempts to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
This legislation put forwards an unconventional route that bypasses the impeachment process, eliminating the requirement for a two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate.
An Arizona congressman introduced legislation Monday to remove the federal judge who has blocked President Donald Trump’s efforts to execute the deportation of Venezuelan gang members, offering a novel path that avoids the impeachment process and the need for two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., submitted a resolution seeking the removal of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, accusing him of “failing to maintain the standard of good behavior required of judges” as set forth by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The resolution can be read here.
“Most Americans believe that there is lifetime tenure for a federal judge. That unless impeached, a federal judge can serve until death,” Biggs said to Just the News. “But lifetime tenure is not guaranteed, nor mentioned, in the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 permits a federal judge to serve only ‘during good behavior.’”
Biggs contended that the constitutional provision grants Congress the power to remove judges who fail to maintain proper standards, even without resorting to impeachment.
Judge Boasberg, who sits on the federal bench in Washington D.C., previously halted the Trump administration’s efforts to deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a transnational gang based out of Venezuela, by blocking the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
Additionally, Boasberg ordered U.S. government aircraft already bound for El Salvador with the suspects onboard to return to the United States.
Boasberg is among several federal judges who have repeatedly thrown wrenches in administration policies, including personnel dismissals, closures of government agencies, and attempts to end birthright citizenship.
According to Biggs, these judges have frequently overstepped their jurisdictional limits. He argues Congress must step in by exercising its constitutional authority to remove judges whose politically driven rulings fall short of impeachment-worthy misconduct.
“[W]hat about a judge who has a conflict of interest and refuses to recuse himself from the case with which he has a conflict? Or, what if he has repeatedly supported publicly a political figure and vigorously denounced, not just on policy grounds, but on more virulent grounds, his political opponent?” Biggs inquired.
“Then a case involving the political adversary comes before him, and he insists on hearing the matter instead of recusing?” Biggs asked. “You see, impeachment doesn’t work in these and other similar instances. The jurisdiction limitation against nationwide injunctions also doesn’t prevent an unjust, biased determination,” he continued.
“Maybe, however, firing such a judge could be the answer. It would certainly be specific deterrence that would prevent that type of misconduct from such a judge. And it would provide general deterrence in that all other federal judges would think more about applying the law to the case rather than attempting to twist the law so that the judge can attack a political adversary,” the Arizona representative highlighted.
Biggs’ resolution against Boasberg asserts that the judge’s injunction preventing the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members violated the president’s “constitutional prerogatives” and therefore constitutes an abuse of power.
“The Constitution grants the President broad and expansive powers over the conduct of foreign policy and to ensure national security against foreign threats,” the resolution stated. “As such, outside questions of the constitutionality of a provision or action, the Constitution places foreign policy decisions by the President and Congress beyond the scope of review by the courts along with actions taken pursuant to those decisions.”
The resolution contended that Boasberg overstepped his power when he “knowingly interfered with the President’s execution of foreign policy by ordering the return of members of a designated foreign terrorist organization to the United States.”
Biggs argues that by issuing this order, “Boasberg knowingly extended beyond the bounds of power of his office and unjustly interfered in the execution of foreign policy and national security for partisan purposes of halting the implementation of the President’s foreign policy and for political gain.”
Biggs’ move to invoke this constitutional provision follows in the footsteps of other Republican initiatives aimed at judicial reform and calls to take advantage of impeachment powers.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, previously told Just the News about his plans to approach judicial reform in three key ways: introducing laws to restrict federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions; utilizing Congress’s budgetary power to counter judicial activism; and conducting hearings to examine judicial conduct.
On Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley also proposed legislation to restrict federal judges’ injunctions exclusively to the involved parties and their specific geographic jurisdictions, preventing individual judges from issuing rulings that affect the entire country.
Meanwhile, other House Republicans have introduced impeachment resolutions targeting at least three judges who blocked Trump administration policies, including Judge Boasberg.
However, Biggs suggests his approach could allow Republicans to circumvent the usual requirement of 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, as well as sidestep the two-thirds majority necessary for impeachment.
“The Senate also confirms judicial nominations by a simple majority vote of 51. The finding that a judge has violated terms of ‘good behavior’ should also be affirmed by a simple majority of votes in the Senate and House,” Biggs said to Just the News.
The new proposal would challenge the traditional interpretation of the “good behavior” clause. The long-held traditional view among legal scholars is that impeachment remains the sole method of removing a federal judge.
However, that view has been challenged as recently as 2006 by some scholars who suggest the wording of the Constitution leaves the door open for removal without impeachment.
This new proposal challenges the conventional understanding of the Constitution’s “good behavior” clause. Traditionally, legal scholars have maintained that impeachment is the only valid method for removing a federal judge.
Yet, this interpretation has been questioned more recently, including by some scholars in 2006, who argue that the Constitution’s wording might allow the removal of judges via alternative methods besides impeachment.
Biggs stated that if his colleagues agree with his reasoning that recent judicial actions breach the Constitution’s “good behavior” clause, “Article III, Section 1 will allow us to collectively say, ‘You’re fired’ to those judges who have forfeited their tenure on the bench by abusing their power.”
José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino
