The Justice Department is asking federal prosecutors across the country to compile what it calls the most “egregious” examples of judges standing in the way of President Donald Trump’s agenda — a move that signals a sharper confrontation between the executive branch and the federal bench.
According to the department, the request is meant to assist Congress in exercising its constitutional authority, including the power to impeach federal judges. The Constitution allows the House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges and the Senate to conduct a trial for offenses described as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Republicans currently control both chambers.
A spokesperson for the department framed the step as a response to what the administration sees as “unprecedented judicial activism,” accusing certain judges of overstepping their role and obstructing policy priorities. The goal, the spokesperson said, is to help lawmakers determine whether any members of the judiciary have violated their oaths.
The move comes amid mounting friction between the administration and courts that have stalled key initiatives, particularly on immigration. Several rulings have temporarily blocked or complicated efforts to implement stricter deportation policies and other executive actions.
In recent months, at least two judicial misconduct complaints were filed by the Justice Department against judges handling cases tied to administration policies. Both complaints were later dismissed.
One of the most visible flashpoints involves Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. He is among a group of judges targeted in impeachment resolutions introduced by Trump allies in the House. Lawmakers first sought action against him after he halted the administration’s attempt to invoke wartime powers to deport Venezuelan migrants. A separate resolution accused him of overreach in a dispute involving phone record disclosures connected to a prior federal investigation.
So far, none of the impeachment efforts have advanced.
The clash has drawn national attention. Last year, Trump publicly called for Boasberg’s removal from the bench, describing him in sharply political terms. That prompted a rare response from Chief Justice John Roberts, who underscored that impeachment is not an appropriate remedy for disagreement over judicial decisions.
Historically, impeachment of federal judges is uncommon. Only 15 judges have been impeached by the House, and just eight were ultimately convicted by the Senate. The threshold for removal remains high — a two-thirds vote in the upper chamber.
The latest maneuver from the Justice Department suggests that the struggle between the White House and segments of the judiciary is far from over. Whether Congress acts on the material it receives — and whether any such effort gains traction — will test the balance of powers that has defined the American system for more than two centuries.
