\n<\/p>\n
Billionaire Elon Musk in recent weeks has raged in a blizzard of social media posts at federal judges who have ruled against his efforts to disembowel the government and executive orders issued by President Donald Trump.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis evil judge must be fired!\u201d he said last month on his social media platform while sharing a photograph of a judge. \u201cThe only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges,\u201d he said in another post last week.<\/p>\n
Trump allies in Congress have followed his lead. Some have called for \u201ccorrupt\u201d<\/a> judges to be removed, while others issued resolutions to impeach at least three federal judges for committing \u201chigh crimes and misdemeanors\u201d in impeding Trump: New York District Court Judge Paul<\/a> Engelmayer<\/a> and D.C. District Court Judges Amir Ali<\/a> and John Bates<\/a>.<\/p>\n The resolutions, made against judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents, are almost certainly dead on arrival, as the judicial impeachment process is deliberately rigorous. The House can impeach federal judges with a simple majority vote, but judges can only be removed after a trial and a vote to convict by a two-thirds majority (67 votes) in the Senate.\u00a0<\/p>\n While impeachments are unlikely, the calls and resolutions are clearly meant to intimidate judges who have ruled against recent Trump policies or judges who may hear future challenges against the administration, Paul Grimm, the director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School and a retired U.S. district judge, told Democracy Docket.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is improper to try to bring undue influence against a judicial officer in the performance of their duties, plain and simple,\u201d Grimm said.<\/p>\n Since the country\u2019s founding, 15 federal judges have been impeached<\/a>, and only eight have been convicted and removed. Notably, none<\/a> of them were based on a disagreement with how a judge ruled.<\/p>\n Arguing that unfavorable rulings constitute high crimes and misdemeanors lowers the standard \u201cdown to the point where anybody who disagrees with something that a presidential administration did is somehow subject to impeachment,\u201d Grimm said.<\/p>\n In general, Trump allies in the House made broad claims of the judges being biased and abusing their power. However, in at least one case, they appealed only to the will of the people.<\/p>\n Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.) claimed in his resolution against Engelmayer that the judge committed high crimes and misdemeanors for making a procedural ruling against Musk\u2019s Department of Government Efficiency, which demonstrated \u201cclear bias and prejudice against the President and the 74,000,000 Americans who voted for him.\u201d (Trump received<\/a> 77 million votes in the 2024 presidential election.)<\/p>\n Musk and the GOP\u2019s intimidation tactics come as judges and lawyers are increasingly facing physical threats. The head of the U.S. Marshals Service Ron Davis said<\/a> last year threats targeting federal judges have more than doubled over the last three years. In 2024, the service investigated<\/a> 822 threats and potential threats against people it protects, including judges, prosecutors and court officials.<\/p>\n In recent years, state<\/a> and federal<\/a> judges and their family members have been injured and murdered in politically motivated attacks. Even Supreme Court justices haven\u2019t been immune from threats<\/a>.<\/p>\n The increased political pressure on the judiciary has been accompanied by Trump officials,\u00a0 including the vice president<\/a> and Trump Department of Justice nominees<\/a>, openly suggesting that some court orders can be ignored.<\/p>\n In response, law societies and bar societies have warned that the outcries for removal and the resolutions are part of a concerted assault on judicial independence. \u201cThese are clearly efforts to intimidate judges and our courts,\u201d the American Bar Association warned<\/a> in a March 3 statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThese actions highlight escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country,\u201d the ABA continued.<\/p>\n Notably, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned against political pressure on federal justices in his year end report last year. \u201cPublic officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others,\u201d he wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n Ominously, all of this \u2014 the intimidation campaign and flirting with ignoring courts \u2014 is occurring while the public\u2019s trust in the judiciary is at a record-low<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cFor the rule of law to exist, the public must have trust in the judicial system,\u201d Grimm said. \u201cThe rule of law doesn\u2019t exist if the public is not willing to acknowledge and be bound by the rulings of courts, even if they disagree with them.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump Bid to Take Over Postal Service Could Threaten Mail Voting<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n