Removing James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for failure to remain in good behavior pursuant to section 1 of article III of the Constitution.
- Bill Number
- H.Res. 270
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-31: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-04-08T08:05:55Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This resolution (H. Res. 270) aims to remove James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, from office. It accuses him of failing to uphold the "good behavior" standard required for federal judges under Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which ensures judges serve during good conduct and can be removed for misconduct.
Key Provisions
- Article of Removal: The House of Representatives exhibits a formal article to the Senate charging Boasberg with "abuse of power."
- It alleges Boasberg violated his oath by using his judicial role to interfere with President Donald J. Trump's foreign policy and national security decisions for political gain.
- Specific accusation: Boasberg ordered the return of members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to the U.S., blocking Trump's March 15, 2025, proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. 21-24). This act allows the President to apprehend and remove individuals from hostile foreign nations during wartime or threats.
- The proclamation declared Tren de Aragua members (linked to Venezuela's government) as alien enemies ineligible for protections, directing the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to act.
- Boasberg is criticized for reviewing terms tied to presidential foreign policy powers, which the resolution claims courts should not second-guess, as foreign affairs are largely non-justiciable (beyond judicial review).
- Additional Claims: Boasberg allegedly failed to disclose non-federal payments and abused discretion on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a secretive court overseeing surveillance warrants.
- Outcome Sought: Immediate removal from office, ending his role as a federal judge.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This resolution does not amend or create new laws. It invokes the Constitution's "good behavior" clause to pursue judicial removal, similar to impeachment, but applies directly to a judge's conduct without altering statutes like the Alien Enemies Act or judicial review standards.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Could empower executive branch actions on immigration and national security by limiting judicial interference, potentially speeding up deportations of designated threats like Tren de Aragua members. It might strain relations between the judiciary and executive branches.
- On Citizens: Affects Venezuelan nationals or immigrants linked to Tren de Aragua, who could face easier apprehension and removal without judicial blocks. Broader implications for due process in national security cases.
- On International Relations: Reinforces U.S. stance against Venezuela by upholding presidential proclamations, but judicial removals could signal politicization of courts, eroding trust in U.S. institutions abroad.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- James E. Boasberg: Directly targeted for removal, impacting his career and the D.C. District Court's leadership.
- U.S. House and Senate: House initiates; Senate would conduct a trial-like process to decide removal.
- Executive Branch Officials: President, Attorney General, and Secretary of Homeland Security benefit from reduced judicial oversight on foreign policy enforcement.
- Immigrants and National Security Targets: Members of Tren de Aragua and similar groups face heightened deportation risks.
- Federal Judiciary: Sets precedent for removing judges over rulings, potentially deterring courts from challenging executive actions.
- Venezuelan Government and Tren de Aragua: Indirectly affected by U.S. policy enforcement against the organization.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal/Constitutional: Challenges the separation of powers by arguing courts overstep in reviewing presidential foreign policy under the Alien Enemies Act. Invokes Article III's good behavior clause for removal, akin to impeachment (which requires House accusation and Senate conviction), but frames it as direct congressional authority. Raises questions about judicial independence if rulings on politically sensitive issues lead to removal.
- Political: Introduced by Republican representatives (e.g., Mr. Biggs of Arizona) on March 31, 2025, it appears partisan, targeting a judge's decision against a Trump administration policy. Referred to the House Judiciary Committee, its passage could deepen partisan divides in Congress and the judiciary, especially amid debates on immigration and executive power. If successful, it might encourage similar actions against other judges, politicizing the bench.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (6)
Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9], Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-31: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-03-31: Submitted in House
- 2025-03-31: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Removing James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for failure to remain in good behavior pursuant to section 1 of article III of the Constitution. — issued 2025-03-31 — PDF (5 pages)