Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs introduces a controversial resolution to remove federal Judge James Boasberg for blocking deportations, igniting a heated constitutional battle over judicial independence and immigration enforcement.
At a Glance
- Rep. Andy Biggs introduced a resolution to fire Judge James Boasberg, bypassing impeachment, after the judge blocked deportations to El Salvador
- Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order after Trump administration deported Venezuelan men despite his warning
- Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked calls for impeachment, emphasizing proper appellate processes
- Over 5,000 illegal immigrants have self-deported in the past month using the CBP Home app
- Trump administration is promoting self-deportation as a safer alternative with potential benefits for future legal immigration
Biggs Challenges Judicial Authority in Deportation Case
Arizona Representative Andy Biggs has taken the extraordinary step of introducing a resolution to remove Federal Judge James Boasberg from office after the judge temporarily halted deportations to El Salvador. The resolution, which aims to bypass the traditional impeachment process, marks an escalation in the ongoing tension between the judicial branch and lawmakers seeking stricter immigration enforcement. Boasberg recently angered immigration hardliners when he blocked President Trump’s deportation flights, triggering immediate pushback from congressional conservatives who view the judge’s actions as judicial overreach.
The confrontation began when Boasberg warned Department of Justice officials not to deport a group of Venezuelan men until he could review their case. Despite this warning, the men were deported the same day, prompting Boasberg to suggest the administration might be in contempt of court and to issue a temporary restraining order on further deportations.
“Chief Judge Boasberg, in violation of his oath of office, did knowingly and willfully use his judicial position to knowingly interfere with the president’s constitutional prerogatives and enforcement of the rule of law for political gain,” said Biggs’ resolution.
Constitutional Showdown Over Judicial Removal
Biggs’ resolution relies on an unconventional legal interpretation that would allow Congress to remove a judge for not maintaining “good behavior” without going through the impeachment process. The Arizona Congressman argues that the Constitution’s language stating “the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior” provides an alternative pathway for removal. Unlike traditional impeachment, which requires a two-thirds Senate majority, Biggs’ approach would need only a simple majority in both chambers, though legal experts widely expect it would face significant constitutional challenges.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” said Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
The unusual attempt to remove Boasberg drew a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who emphasized the importance of judicial independence. Roberts noted that the proper response to disagreements with judicial decisions is to use established appellate review processes, not impeachment or removal. Legal scholars have pointed out that Biggs’ interpretation lacks historical precedent and would fundamentally alter the balance of power between branches of government if successful.
Self-Deportation Initiative Shows Early Results
While the constitutional battle plays out, the Trump administration has intensified efforts to encourage voluntary self-deportation among illegal immigrants. Over 5,000 individuals have used the CBP Home app to self-deport in the last month alone, according to administration officials. The White House has released informational flyers warning of potential daily fines of $998 for those who fail to leave after receiving deportation orders, while highlighting benefits for those who depart voluntarily, including retention of earned money and potential pathways for future legal immigration.
“Our nation’s immigration laws impose severe penalties on aliens who are illegally in the country. The only reason there is a large population of illegal immigrants residing in the United States is because prior administrations have failed to enforce these laws passed by Congress. Everyone knows this, including the aliens who have been illegally living here. The current trend of illegal aliens self-deporting proves that even just the credible threat of enforcement can be enough to get many illegal immigrants to comply with our laws and leave the country,” states James Rogers.
Administration officials point to the self-deportation numbers as evidence that credible enforcement threats can achieve compliance with immigration laws. The initiative represents a significant shift in practical immigration policy, with officials emphasizing that self-deportation allows individuals to leave on their own terms and potentially preserve options for future legal entry. Critics maintain the approach creates unnecessary fear, while supporters contend it simply enforces existing laws that previous administrations failed to uphold.
