US Judges Speak Out Against Republican Impeachment Push (1)

A federal judge overseeing judicial security issues said he’s concerned about recent articles of impeachment filed against judges who have ruled against the Trump administration’s early actions.

Asked about the impeachment effort, Judge Richard Sullivan, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s committee on judicial security, said at a press briefing Tuesday that judges can’t avoid deciding cases, and that there are already proper pathways for litigants to challenge rulings they dislike through appeals.

“Impeachment is not—shouldn’t be—a short circuiting of that process, and so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that,” said Sullivan, who sits on the New York-based US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Several House Republicans have moved in recent weeks to impeach federal judges in Washington and New York hearing challenges to Trump administration actions after expressing dissatisfaction with the rulings. Cases involved the administration’s removal of public health data, US Agency for International Development funding, and a bid by billionaire Elon Musk’s cost-cutting team to access certain government information.

Sullivan said that he’s not pointing fingers at any one party or a branch of the government for an uptick in threats against judges, saying it’s been building for a while.

“I think the reality is that there are a lot of a lot of folks who will respond and react, perhaps inappropriately, based on something they heard or read, and so I just think it’s important for everyone to be responsible in what they say about our process,” Sullivan said.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who chairs the Judicial Conference’s executive committee, said that threats of impeachment have happened before.

“One thing worth keeping in mind is if we dilute the standards for impeachment, that’s not just a problem for judges,” Sutton said. “That’s a problem for all three branches of government.”

Impeachments of federal judges are rare. The last one was in 2010 and involved a Louisiana judge removed from office for taking bribes.

Sullivan and Sutton made the remarks following a biannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s policymaking body.

Budget Concerns

Sullivan also raised concerns about funding for the US Marshals Service, which is tasked with protecting federal judges. “We need to make sure that the marshals have the resources they need, and there’s only so many cuts that I think the marshals can take before they can provide services of that caliber,” he said.

Recent spending bills that have kept the judiciary’s court security budget flat represent an effective cut given inflation. He said that means delays in important equipment upgrades at courthouses.

“I hope that the Congress will take another look at this and recognize that the judiciary is a third branch of government,” Sullivan said. “It’s an independent branch, and it needs to be secure in its workspaces and the courthouses.”

Court Expansion

Efforts to add judgeships and alleviate pressure on courts that have been outgrown by the populations they cover were also discussed at the biannual meeting, Sutton said. The meeting featured remarks from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has led legislation to authorize more judges, he said.

“There was not a discussion of what went wrong. There was definitely a discussion of how we can make things go right this time around,” Sutton said.

The Judicial Conference released its recommendation earlier Tuesday for Congress to add 71 more federal judges, increasing its request from two years ago.

The request included 69 additional trial court judgeships—up from 66 in 2023—and two more appeals court judgeships, citing growing caseloads and the years-long congressional stalemate over expanding the courts.

Congress hasn’t broadly expanded the courts since 1990, or added a single new judgeship in more than two decades.

A prior effort to add judgeships was vetoed last year by President Joe Biden after the once-bipartisan measure lost the support of Democrats once Donald Trump won the election. Though the Senate passed the bill unanimously before the next president was known, House Republicans didn’t take the measure up until after the election.

Issa reintroduced a similar version of the vetoed bill earlier this year, which would add 63 permanent and three temporary trial court judgeships in stages over the next decade.

He said at a hearing last month that he plans to adjust the bill based on the Judicial Conference’s new recommendations. A draft bill was advanced by the House Judicial Committee this month.

However, House Democrats have so far indicated they won’t support any bill to expand the judiciary that would allow Donald Trump to fill the first batch of seats.