Staff Reports
In a bold move that could send shockwaves through the halls of justice, Representative Andy Biggs from Arizona has placed a constitutional proposal on the table aiming to remove a federal judge who dared to challenge the deportation of Venezuelan gang members. Rather than trudge through the impeachment process—a convoluted, time-consuming labyrinth that requires a two-thirds Senate majority—Biggs has invoked a lesser-used “good behavior” clause in the Constitution that he argues allows Congress more leeway in determining the fitness of judges.
The judge in question, James Boasberg, has become something of a judicial celebrity for blocking the Trump administration’s deportation efforts under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. By forcing government planes to return to the United States rather than offloading alleged gang members in El Salvador, Boasberg has gallantly taken up the cause of lawlessness. However, Biggs claims that Boasberg’s actions represent not just a judicial overreach, but a blatant abuse of power, warranting removal without the traditional hurdles associated with impeachment.
Biggs stresses that many Americans mistakenly believe judges have a lifetime appointment that cannot be touched unless impeached. What many may not realize, he argues, is that the Founding Fathers actually considered the potential for removing judges who don’t keep up with their professional responsibilities. They certainly didn’t envision a judiciary run amok, blocking lawful actions straight from the Oval Office. Given that judges like Boasberg have been obstructing the will of the executive branch, Biggs posits that Congress has not just the right, but the obligation to step in.
Breaking: House lawmaker moves to oust judge in deportation case with move that skips impeachment https://t.co/sXyLtRKJEl
— Just the News (@JustTheNews) March 31, 2025
He points to the frequent conflicts of interest and apparent biases exhibited by judges in politically charged cases as an example of why this proposal is necessary. While impeachment may seem like the go-to solution for some of these judicial miscreants, Biggs wants to work around that by simply declaring judges unfit for duty without needing overwhelming congressional approval. Who would have thought that judges could get the old “You’re fired!” treatment straight from Capitol Hill instead of reality TV?
The resolution drafted by Biggs outlines Boasberg’s actions as part of a broader trend of judicial obstructionism against the Trump administration. It declares that by interfering with foreign policy and national security efforts, Boasberg crossed a line. Essentially, his judicial decisions might just be sabotaging the country for purely political gain. In Biggs’ eyes, this kind of behavior is unacceptable and not representative of the “good behavior” required of those in black robes doling out justice.
Biggs’ proposal not only challenges the limits of judicial authority but also offers a fresh perspective on congressional power. The anticipated pushback from legal scholars and traditionalists who might argue that impeachment is the only option could be fierce, but it also opens the door to a vigorous debate on the nature of judicial accountability. If Congress can successfully invoke this provision, it would represent a seismic shift in the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches—a chance to hold rogue judges accountable like never before. With Biggs leading the charge, the implications could be monumental, positioning Congress as a solid counterbalance to the ever-wary, and sometimes overreaching, judicial branch.
