Could the gavel of justice soon turn on those who wield it?

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., announced his support for impeachment articles against two federal judges, Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court in Maryland, during a press conference on Wednesday. The move comes amid calls from some Republican lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who have criticized the judges for rulings in politically charged cases. Johnson described the potential action as significant but did not confirm plans to bring impeachment articles to a vote on the House floor.

Cruz has led the charge, holding a hearing earlier this month to argue that both judges overstepped their constitutional duties. Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced impeachment resolutions against Boasberg in March 2025 over decisions blocking migrant deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and again in November over rulings tied to the Arctic Frost investigation into 2020 election interference. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, also filed a resolution in October targeting Boardman for a sentencing decision in a case involving an attempt on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s life.

Judges Under Fire for Controversial Decisions

The issue has sparked intense debate among lawmakers and legal observers. While some see these judicial rulings as necessary checks on executive power, others argue they represent a dangerous overreach that undermines the rule of law.

Take Judge Boasberg’s rulings, for instance. Critics point to his nondisclosure order in the Arctic Frost probe, which kept subpoenas secret for a full year, allowing the Justice Department to access phone records of several members of Congress. This kind of secrecy, they argue, erodes trust in both the judiciary and government accountability, The Hill reported.

Then there’s Boasberg’s intervention in deportation cases, where he ordered planes of migrants bound for El Salvador to be turned around. For many, this decision exemplifies judicial activism stepping into policy areas best left to elected officials. Gill’s resolutions, backed by 23 and 19 co-sponsors respectively, reflect a growing frustration with such actions.

Sentencing Sparks Outrage in Kavanaugh Case

Judge Boardman’s sentencing of Sophie Roske, charged under the birth name Nicholas Roske for plotting to kill Justice Kavanaugh, has also drawn sharp criticism. Her decision to impose an eight-year sentence—far below the 30 years prosecutors sought—has fueled accusations of leniency in a case of grave national importance. Roy’s resolution, supported by 16 co-sponsors, claims Boardman systematically disregarded legal standards in this ruling.

Boardman’s reference during sentencing to an executive order on housing transgender women in male prisons has only added fuel to the fire. Detractors argue this shows a troubling injection of personal or ideological bias into a case that demanded strict impartiality.

Speaker Johnson himself didn’t mince words when addressing these controversies. “Judge Boasberg is one who’s been mentioned. And these are some egregious abuses,” he stated during his press conference.

Impeachment as a Necessary Check?

Johnson’s stance signals a readiness to wield congressional power against perceived judicial overreach. “Impeachment, as we have discussed all together many, many times, is an extreme measure. But extreme times call for extreme measures,” he added, hinting at the broader implications of unchecked judicial authority.

Yet, Johnson stopped short of committing to a House vote, leaving the door open for further deliberation. His background in constitutional law and past service on the House Judiciary Committee lend weight to his perspective, but the hesitation suggests a recognition of the gravity of such a step.

Supporters of impeachment argue it’s high time Congress reasserted its oversight role. They see these cases as emblematic of a judiciary drifting too far into policymaking, whether it’s blocking deportations or issuing secretive orders in sensitive investigations.

Balancing Justice and Accountability

On the flip side, defenders of the judges caution against politicizing the judiciary. They warn that impeachment over disagreements on rulings risks undermining the independence that courts need to function as a check on other branches of government.

Still, for those frustrated with what they see as judicial oversteps, the actions of Boasberg and Boardman aren’t mere disagreements—they’re red flags. Whether it’s phone records of lawmakers being swept up in secret probes or sentencing decisions that seem out of step with the severity of the crime, the stakes feel personal and urgent.

Ultimately, this debate cuts to the heart of how power is balanced in our system. As calls for impeachment grow louder, the question remains whether Congress will act to curb what some see as judicial excess—or whether caution will prevail to preserve the delicate separation of powers.