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.
Summary
H. Res. 270 is a House resolution that seeks to remove Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia from office under the Constitution’s “good Behavior” clause for federal judges. The resolution would present an article of removal to the Senate and asserts that Judge Boasberg abused his judicial office by interfering with presidential foreign-policy and national-security actions, particularly in connection with the Alien Enemies Act and the administration’s efforts to apprehend and remove alleged members of Tren de Aragua.
The resolution’s findings argue that the President has broad authority over foreign affairs and national security and that the judge exceeded the proper scope of judicial review by issuing orders affecting those actions. It also alleges additional misconduct, including failure to disclose certain non-federal payments and abuse of discretion while serving on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The measure is framed as an impeachment-style removal action against a federal judge, though it is not itself a law changing general statutory rules.
If adopted, the resolution would not amend the U.S. Code or create a new statutory scheme; instead, it would invoke Congress’s constitutional impeachment/removal power over federal judges and send an article of removal to the Senate for further proceedings. Its practical effect would be limited to the targeted judge and to the constitutional process for judicial removal, rather than to broader state law or general federal regulatory law.
The available context shows no committee hearing transcript and no recorded votes, and the bill was simply referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. That suggests the measure was introduced as a strongly partisan and highly confrontational response to a specific judicial ruling, rather than as a broadly negotiated legislative proposal. The overall sentiment in the text is sharply critical of Judge Boasberg and supportive of presidential authority, with no evident countervailing support or bipartisan framing in the available materials.
The main point of contention is whether Judge Boasberg’s actions were a legitimate exercise of judicial review or an unconstitutional intrusion into executive foreign-policy powers. Supporters of the resolution characterize his conduct as abuse of power and partisan interference, while opponents would likely view the measure as an attack on judicial independence and an attempt to punish a judge for ruling against the administration. The allegations about undisclosed payments and FISA Court conduct add an additional layer of criticism, but the central dispute is over separation of powers and the scope of judicial authority.
Impact
The resolution would affect federal constitutional impeachment/removal procedures for Article III judges rather than state statutes. It seeks to trigger Senate consideration of an article of removal against a single federal judge, and if pursued further could result in removal from office, but it does not amend substantive law governing immigration, foreign affairs, or judicial procedure.
Sentiment
The bill text reflects a strongly negative sentiment toward Judge Boasberg and a strong defense of presidential authority in foreign affairs and national security. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes, the available record shows only the sponsors’ position, which is highly accusatory and partisan in tone. The measure appears to have been introduced as a protest or punitive response to a judicial decision, with no evidence in the provided materials of bipartisan support or compromise.
Contention
The central contention is whether Judge Boasberg’s order was an improper interference with executive foreign-policy powers or a lawful judicial check on executive action. Sponsors argue he exceeded his authority, acted for political gain, and engaged in additional misconduct involving disclosures and FISA Court service. Critics would likely argue that the resolution threatens judicial independence and uses the removal process to retaliate against an unfavorable ruling. The dispute therefore turns on separation of powers, the Alien Enemies Act, immigration enforcement, and the constitutional standard for removing federal judges.
Impeaching John James McConnell Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
District of Columbia Federal Judicial Officials Residency Equality Act of 2025This bill requires U.S. district and circuit court judges, U.S. district court clerks, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals who are appointed to serve in the District of Columbia to be residents of the District of Columbia.