Impeaching John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors.
H. Res. 1309 is a House resolution impeaching John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, and setting out six articles of impeachment. The resolution alleges that the Chief Justice violated his constitutional oath and judicial duties by allowing the Supreme Court to become politicized, by enabling partisan redistricting and weakening protections for majority-minority districts, by supporting campaign finance rulings that favor wealthy interests, by joining the Court’s decision granting a former president broad criminal immunity, by presiding over an increasingly opaque emergency docket, and by failing to recuse or fully disclose potential conflicts tied to his spouse’s legal recruiting work.
The measure does not amend state law directly, but it targets federal constitutional and statutory issues, especially the impeachment power of the House, judicial ethics, recusal standards under 28 U.S.C. § 455, voting rights, campaign finance, and separation of powers. If adopted, it would initiate impeachment proceedings in the House and transmit articles to the Senate for trial, potentially leading to removal from office and disqualification from future federal office. As introduced, it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and has no recorded votes in the provided history.
The overall sentiment reflected in the text is strongly adversarial and accusatory. The resolution presents the Chief Justice as having abandoned judicial neutrality and as having helped entrench partisan, wealthy, and executive power. The tone is not bipartisan or procedural; it is a forceful call for impeachment based on a broad critique of the Roberts Court’s major decisions and administrative practices.
The main points of contention are the bill’s claims that Supreme Court decisions on redistricting, voting rights, campaign finance, presidential immunity, and emergency orders amount to impeachable misconduct. Supporters of the resolution would likely view these rulings as evidence of bias, while opponents would likely argue that the bill is an attack on judicial independence and disagreement with legal reasoning rather than proof of impeachable offenses. The recusal allegations involving Jane Sullivan Roberts and the Court’s emergency docket are also likely to be disputed as insufficient grounds for impeachment.
The resolution would not change substantive state statutes, but it would invoke the House’s constitutional impeachment authority against the Chief Justice and could affect federal judicial governance, ethics expectations, and the political environment surrounding Supreme Court decisions. It specifically references federal law on judicial disqualification and broader constitutional doctrines involving voting rights, campaign finance, and presidential immunity, while also implicating state redistricting and election administration practices through the cited cases.
The bill’s sentiment is overwhelmingly negative toward Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court majority. The resolution frames the Court as politicized, anti-democratic, and favorable to wealthy and entrenched interests, and it seeks the most severe constitutional remedy available. No supportive or balancing discussion is provided in the record, and there are no recorded votes or committee remarks to suggest bipartisan backing.
The central contention is whether the Chief Justice’s judicial decisions and court administration can constitute impeachable conduct. The resolution argues that rulings on redistricting, campaign finance, presidential immunity, emergency relief, and recusal show bias and abuse of office, while likely critics would say these are lawful judicial acts protected by judicial independence. The recusal and disclosure allegations involving the Chief Justice’s spouse are another disputed point, as is the claim that emergency docket practices and timing of decisions amount to constitutional violations.