Capitol Hill is no stranger to controversy, but this week’s confrontation between Congress and the federal judiciary underscored just how sharply the political temperature has risen. During a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas delivered one of his most forceful attacks yet on the federal bench, calling for the impeachment of two sitting judges whom he accused of abusing their authority and undermining the constitutional order.
The judges singled out by Cruz were James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman. According to Cruz, both jurists exemplify a growing problem within the judiciary: judges who, in his view, have moved beyond interpreting the law and instead impose ideological outcomes from the bench.
A Rare Demand, Delivered Without Hesitation
Impeachment of federal judges is exceptionally uncommon. In more than two centuries of American history, only a small handful have been impeached, typically for unmistakable criminal conduct such as bribery or corruption. Cruz acknowledged this reality during the hearing, but rejected the notion that rarity should shield judges from accountability.
Instead, he argued that impeachment was designed as a constitutional safeguard precisely for moments when judges violate public trust in ways that may not fit neatly into criminal statutes.
According to Cruz, the framers of the Constitution feared not only criminal judges, but also judges who quietly erode democratic governance by abusing lifetime appointments.
The Broader Argument: Power Without Accountability
Cruz framed his remarks as part of a larger constitutional concern rather than a narrow political grievance. Federal judges enjoy life tenure, sweeping authority, and limited oversight—an arrangement meant to protect judicial independence. But Cruz argued that independence becomes dangerous when it morphs into unrestrained power.
In his telling, some judges now wield injunctions and rulings as political tools, effectively vetoing the decisions of elected officials and reshaping national policy without democratic consent.
He emphasized that impeachment was not intended solely as a punishment for crimes, but as a corrective mechanism when judges “subvert the constitutional order” or “injure society itself,” even if their conduct does not result in criminal charges.
Why Judge Boasberg?
Judge James Boasberg has long been a lightning rod for conservative criticism, particularly due to rulings that have constrained executive authority. Cruz and other critics argue that Boasberg has repeatedly inserted the judiciary into matters constitutionally reserved for the political branches, especially in cases involving immigration enforcement and national security.
From Cruz’s perspective, such rulings do more than interpret the law—they actively reshape policy outcomes and limit the president’s ability to execute laws passed by Congress.
While supporters of Boasberg insist his decisions are grounded in legal precedent, Cruz contends that the cumulative effect of such rulings reflects a pattern of judicial activism rather than impartial adjudication.
Judge Boardman and the Sentencing Firestorm
Judge Deborah Boardman has faced especially intense backlash from conservatives over a sentencing decision that shocked many observers. The case involved an individual who attempted to assassinate a sitting justice of the Supreme Court—a crime that, in the eyes of critics, demanded severe punishment.
Boardman’s sentence, however, was widely viewed on the right as astonishingly lenient. The ruling triggered outrage among lawmakers and legal commentators who argued that such decisions undermine deterrence, public safety, and confidence in the justice system.
Cruz pointed to this case as emblematic of what he described as a judiciary increasingly detached from the real-world consequences of its rulings.
“Impeachable Misconduct Need Not Be Criminal”
One of the most striking elements of Cruz’s argument was his emphasis on constitutional history. He reminded the committee that the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was intentionally broad, allowing Congress to address serious abuses of office even when no statute has been violated.
According to Cruz, limiting impeachment solely to criminal conduct misunderstands its purpose and leaves the nation vulnerable to institutional decay.
In his words, the gravest danger comes not from judges who take bribes, but from those who quietly accumulate power while remaining insulated from accountability.
The Opposition Pushes Back
Not surprisingly, Cruz’s remarks sparked immediate backlash from legal scholars and Democratic lawmakers. Critics warned that threatening impeachment over controversial rulings risks politicizing the judiciary and chilling judicial independence.
They argue that unpopular decisions are an inevitable part of the judicial role and that disagreement with outcomes is not evidence of misconduct. In their view, impeachment should remain a last resort, reserved for unmistakable ethical or criminal violations.
Some also cautioned that expanding impeachment to cover ideological disputes could trigger retaliatory cycles, with each party targeting judges it dislikes whenever power shifts.
The Political Reality: An Uphill Battle
Even among Republicans, there is little expectation that impeachment proceedings will advance in the near term. Impeachment must originate in the House of Representatives and requires a majority vote. Conviction in the Senate would then require a two-thirds majority—an extraordinarily high bar in today’s polarized political environment.
Given Democratic opposition and the reluctance of some Republicans to escalate tensions with the judiciary, the odds of removal are slim.
As a result, Cruz’s call is widely interpreted as a strategic warning rather than a procedural launch—a signal that patience with the federal bench is wearing thin among conservatives.
Why the Warning Matters
Even without formal impeachment proceedings, Cruz’s comments carry significant weight. They reflect a broader shift within the Republican Party toward direct confrontation with institutions perceived as hostile or unaccountable.
The judiciary has increasingly become a central battleground in national politics, resolving disputes over immigration, elections, regulatory authority, and executive power. As courts play a larger role in shaping policy outcomes, scrutiny of judges is intensifying.
Cruz’s message suggests that lifetime tenure will no longer guarantee political insulation, at least in rhetoric.
A Deeper Constitutional Tension
At its core, the controversy highlights a fundamental tension embedded in the American system: how to preserve judicial independence while preventing judicial overreach.
Supporters of Cruz argue that independence without accountability invites abuse. Opponents counter that accountability enforced through political pressure threatens the rule of law.
The Constitution provides tools for resolving this tension, but using them has consequences. Impeachment, once invoked, reshapes institutional norms and signals a breakdown in mutual restraint.
The Road Ahead
Whether Cruz’s call leads to action or fades into the background, it marks an important moment in the ongoing struggle over the balance of power in Washington. It underscores growing frustration with the judiciary and raises uncomfortable questions about who ultimately governs the country.
Are judges neutral arbiters, or have some become policymakers in robes? And if the latter, what remedies remain?
Those questions will not be answered quickly. But one thing is clear: the clash between Congress and the courts is intensifying, and the era of quiet deference to the federal bench may be coming to an end.