Coup by Gavel: The Case for Impeaching Judges Who Cross the Line
by Michael Stevens
Word Count: 748 | Reading Time: ~4 minutes
A Judge Who Got It Right
On January 30, 2003, U.S. District Judge William Young sentenced Richard Reid—the “shoe bomber”—to life in prison. Reid tried to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 in the name of al-Qaeda. In court, Judge Young said what needed to be said:
“We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators. You are not an enemy combatant—you are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any army—you are a terrorist… We hunt [terrorists] down one by one and bring them to justice.”
— Judge William Young, U.S. v. Reid (2003)
Young upheld the law, spoke plainly, honored his oath, and exercised constitutional authority with clarity. No theatrics. No politics. No ideological preening. A federal judge doing his job. You’d think the legal establishment would celebrate that kind of fidelity to the Constitution. They didn’t. Bar associations stayed silent. Media outlets ignored it.
That’s because Judge Young didn’t rule with ideology. He ruled with law.
But That’s Not the Trend
More and more, federal judges are not just ruling—they’re superceding the President and executing laws. From the bench, they issue nationwide injunctions to override the elected branches. They publish political opinions disguised as judgments. They show up at partisan events, break disclosure rules, and tip their hand on hot-button issues.
When they’re called out, they hide behind “judicial independence.” That term is now used not to protect impartiality but to shield misconduct. Too many shrugs, assuming impeachment is only for crimes.
It’s not.
Impeachment Isn’t Just for Felonies
The Constitution says federal judges serve “during good behavior” (Article III, Section 1). Lifetime appointment is conditional—not absolute. Article II, Section 4 gives Congress the power to remove judges for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That’s a political standard, not a criminal one.
Fifteen federal judges have been impeached. At least five were not removed for crimes:
-
John Pickering (1804): Removed for drunkenness and erratic rulings.
-
West Humphreys (1862): Removed for siding with the Confederacy.
-
George English (1926): Resigned under impeachment for tyrannical behavior.
-
Halsted Ritter (1936): Removed for favoritism and unethical conduct.
-
Walter Nixon (1989): Removed after perjury—though broader misconduct was key.
More recently, Judge Thomas Porteous was impeached in 2010 for corruption and dishonesty, not criminal conviction. Judge Alcee Hastings was removed despite being acquitted in a bribery trial—because he lied under oath.
Congress has the power. It’s just not using it.
Chief Justice Roberts: A Dereliction
Chief Justice John Roberts could have drawn a line. Instead, he backed away. He declined to preside over the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump in 2021. The Constitution says the Chief Justice “shall preside” when the President is tried. Roberts claimed Trump was no longer president—so he didn’t show.
That wasn’t neutrality. That was abdication.
He could have presided and ruled on jurisdiction. That’s how constitutional duty works. But instead, he issued an unofficial advisory opinion and disappeared, allowing a partisan senator to oversee the trial.
Then in 2024, Roberts made it worse. Speaking publicly, Roberts said impeachment isn’t how to handle legal disagreements. That’s a misreading. Impeachment isn’t about disagreement—it’s about unfitness. That includes ethical failure, dishonesty, abuse of office, or politicizing the bench.
The Supreme Court has said as much. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Court ruled that impeachment is a “nonjusticiable political question.” Congress defines it, not the courts or the Chief Justice.
The Coup in Robes
We see a slow coup, not by tanks or rifles, but by silence and robes. A few judges now act as political actors. They are insulated, applauded, and rarely held accountable. That is not judicial independence. That is judicial supremacy.
The Founders saw it coming. In Federalist No. 79, Alexander Hamilton wrote that judges must be removable “for inability and misconduct.” That safeguard is not optional—it is essential. Without it, the robe becomes a shield for partisanship.
Judge William Young showed us what a judge is supposed to be. He wasn’t looking for applause. He was upholding the law.
We need more like him—and fewer judges who turn their courtrooms into pulpits for ideology.
A Coup by Any Other Name
A coup by any other name is still a coup. Whether it’s rigging elections, faking impeachments, ignoring the 22nd Amendment, replacing elected authority with bureaucracy, using the courts to override the executive, or silencing dissent in Congress—it’s still a coup.
When the Federalists lost power in 1800, they tried to hold onto it by packing the judiciary with “midnight appointments.” They failed. Today’s power players are more subtle. But the aim is the same: rule without winning elections.
Impeachment isn’t an attack on the judiciary. It’s the tool the Constitution gave us to preserve it.
It’s time to use it.
Sources:
-
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4; Article III, Section 1
-
Federalist No. 79, Alexander Hamilton
-
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993)
-
Office of the Historian, U.S. House of Representatives – List of Impeached Federal Judges
-
Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges – United States Courts
-
Remarks of Chief Justice Roberts, American Law Institute, Feb. 2024
-
Sentencing remarks of Judge William Young, U.S. v. Richard Reid, January 30, 2003 – Congressional Record PDF