Impeaching James E. Boasberg, United States District Court Chief Judge for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Bill Number

H.Res. 858

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Law

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-11-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-01-31T09:05:44Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This resolution (H. Res. 858) seeks to impeach James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for "high crimes and misdemeanors." High crimes and misdemeanors refer to serious misconduct that makes a public official unfit to hold office, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 4). The resolution accuses him of abusing his judicial power in ways that allegedly undermine constitutional protections for members of Congress and others.

Key Provisions

• Article of Impeachment: Abuse of Power

The resolution presents a single article charging Judge Boasberg with:

• Authorizing Special Counsel John L. Smith to issue "frivolous" (baseless or unjustified) nondisclosure orders—court directives that prevent companies or individuals from notifying targets of subpoenas (legal demands for information). These orders were part of an FBI investigation codenamed ARCTIC FROST.
• Issuing orders that allegedly violated the legislative duties and privileges of U.S. Senators and Representatives, protected by the Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution), which shields lawmakers from legal interference in their official roles. Specific members named include Senators Marsha Blackburn, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, Rick Scott, Dan Sullivan, and Tommy Tuberville, as well as Representative Mike Kelly.
• Approving an order blocking AT&T from notifying Senator Cruz of a subpoena for at least one year, based on findings of potential evidence destruction or witness intimidation, which the resolution claims lacked a reasonable basis and implied unethical conduct by Senator Cruz (a licensed attorney).
• Failing to adhere to 2 U.S.C. § 6628, a statute that prohibits court orders from blocking notifications to Senate offices about legal processes involving their data on electronic systems.
• Potentially facilitating subpoenas targeting conservative nonprofit organizations (e.g., Conservative Partnership Institute, America First Policy Institute, Women for America First, Center for Renewing America) and individuals (e.g., Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Cleta Mitchell, Amy Kremer, Kelli Ward, Jenna Ellis, Wesley Denton), allegedly to suppress political speech opposing Biden Administration policies.
• The resolution directs that this article be presented to the U.S. Senate for trial and calls for Judge Boasberg's removal from office.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This resolution does not amend or create new laws; it is a procedural step in the impeachment process under Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution. If adopted by the House and convicted by the Senate, it would result in Judge Boasberg's removal but would not alter statutes or judicial precedents directly.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies and Judiciary: Could disrupt operations at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, including ongoing investigations like ARCTIC FROST involving the FBI and Special Counsel's office. Removal of the Chief Judge might lead to administrative changes and erode public trust in the federal judiciary if perceived as politically motivated.
• On Citizens and Political Groups: May chill free speech and activism, particularly among conservative organizations and individuals targeted by subpoenas, by signaling heightened legal risks for opposing government policies. It could also affect how electronic data of public officials is handled under privacy laws.
• On International Relations: No direct impacts mentioned, though the investigation (ARCTIC FROST) may relate to broader national security matters not detailed here.
• Broader effects include potential delays in judicial proceedings and increased partisan scrutiny of federal judges.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• James E. Boasberg: Directly targeted for impeachment and potential removal from his lifetime-appointed position (confirmed in 2011).
• Members of Congress: Senators and Representative listed, whose legislative work is alleged to have been improperly scrutinized, potentially affecting their ability to perform duties without fear of legal interference.
• Special Counsel John L. Smith and FBI: Their investigative authority and methods (e.g., subpoenas and nondisclosure orders) are challenged, which could limit future probes.
• Conservative Organizations and Individuals: Nonprofits and activists named, who may face ongoing legal pressures seen as attempts to silence dissent.
• Telecom and Tech Providers (e.g., AT&T): Impacted by court orders on data disclosure and notifications.
• U.S. Congress and Senate: The House initiates the process; the Senate would conduct a trial, influencing inter-branch relations.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Raises questions about the validity of nondisclosure orders under statutes like 2 U.S.C. § 6628 and the Stored Communications Act, potentially inviting appeals or challenges to judicial oversight of investigations. It accuses the judge of unfitness, which could prompt ethics reviews by judicial bodies.
• Constitutional Implications: Centers on the separation of powers (Articles I, II, III), alleging judicial overreach into legislative privileges via the Speech or Debate Clause. This could test the balance between judicial authority in criminal probes and congressional immunity, possibly leading to Supreme Court review if the impeachment proceeds.
• Political Implications: Introduced by Republican House members amid partisan divides, it highlights tensions over investigations into January 6-related events or political opposition. Success or failure could intensify debates on judicial impartiality and the use of impeachment as a political tool, affecting public confidence in institutions without resolving underlying disputes through the courts.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26]

Cosponsors (22)

Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21], Rep. Fine, Randy [R-FL-6], Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Stutzman, Marlin A. [R-IN-3], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10], Rep. Moore, Riley M. [R-WV-2], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2], Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1], Rep. Alford, Mark [R-MO-4], Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]

Recent Actions

• 2025-11-04: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-11-04: Submitted in House
• 2025-11-04: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

• Impeaching James E. Boasberg, United States District Court Chief Judge for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors. — issued 2025-11-04 — PDF (4 pages)