"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." – Chief Justice John Roberts
Translation: If you don't like a court ruling, you appeal. You don't ignore it. You don't retaliate against the judge. And you don't call for their impeachment.
And yet… here we are.
This all started when Judge James Boasberg blocked the Trump administration's attempt to deport a group of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a law originally meant for wartime, not for mass deportations. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order, saying the government had to follow due process before kicking these people out. Seems reasonable, right?
Not to Trump. His administration ignored the order. He refused to order two air-born planes to turn around and allowed another to take off hours after Boasberg's order. Then Trump doubled down, calling for Judge Boasberg's impeachment—because, apparently, ruling against him is now an impeachable offense.
That's when Chief Justice Roberts stepped in with a rare public rebuke. He reminded everyone—especially Trump—that this is not how any of this works. If you don't like a ruling, you appeal. You don't just decide court orders are optional, and you don't try to intimidate judges into ruling your way.
This is bigger than one case. It's a constitutional crisis in real time. If the executive branch can simply ignore court rulings, then what happens to judicial authority? And if judges can be threatened with impeachment for making lawful rulings, what happens to judicial independence? This isn't just unconstitutional, it's flat out dystopian.
This is a full-on stress test for American democracy. The question isn't whether this is serious (it is). The question is whether the system will hold. Because once constitutional norms break, history tells us they're damn hard to put back together.