Democrat Seeks to Punish Chief Justice Roberts With Impeachment

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is now the target of a new impeachment resolution introduced by Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat, as the left continues escalating its attacks on the high court’s conservative majority.

Cohen unveiled the resolution Thursday after previously announcing he would not seek reelection. The move comes in the wake of a major Supreme Court ruling in late April that significantly narrowed the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a decision that infuriated Democrats who have relied on expansive interpretations of federal voting law to challenge Republican-backed election maps.

So far, Cohen’s resolution has no co-sponsors.

With Republicans narrowly controlling the House, the measure is not expected to advance. Still, it reflects the growing frustration among Democrats who have increasingly targeted the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority after a series of decisions returning power to the Constitution, the states, and elected representatives.

In a statement announcing the resolution, Cohen accused Roberts of leading a court that is now “understood as biased: with decisions designed to benefit Republicans at the expense of representative government, seemingly contradictory and unexplained orders, and a pattern of ethical breaches that raises questions about the role of the wealthy.”

“I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that while John Roberts remains Chief Justice, correcting this misconduct and ensuring the Justices and the Court itself comply with their legal obligations will be impossible,” Cohen, whose seat is going to be redrawn out of existence by the Tennessee Legislature, said.

The Supreme Court has moved substantially toward constitutional originalism in recent years, especially after President Donald Trump appointed three justices during his first term. That shift has produced landmark rulings on abortion, affirmative action, voting law, executive power, and the authority of the federal bureaucracy.

Many conservatives view those decisions as long-overdue corrections to decades of judicial overreach. Democrats, however, have increasingly portrayed the court as ideological and partisan, a claim conservatives reject as an attempt to delegitimize rulings the left cannot win through the democratic process.

Roberts addressed that criticism earlier this month during remarks to lawyers and judges in Pennsylvania, defending the judiciary and pushing back on the idea that the Supreme Court operates like a political branch.

“I think at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, [that] we’re saying we think this is what things should be as opposed to this is what the law provides,” Roberts said.

“I think they view us as truly political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do. I would say that’s the main difficulty,” he said, via Newsweek.

Cohen’s resolution includes six articles of impeachment against Roberts, with accusations focused largely on the court’s handling of election law, campaign finance, executive power, emergency rulings, and recusal issues, according to Newsweek.

Article I, titled “Failure of Stewardship: Politization of the Court,” accuses Roberts of allowing the court to become “a political instrument” through its handling of election and redistricting cases.

Article II, titled “Violation of Oaths: Entrenchment of Minority Rule,” claims Roberts enabled partisan gerrymandering and weakened voting rights protections through decisions including Rucho v. Common Cause and Louisiana v. Callais.

Article III, titled “Violation of Oath: Empowering the Rich Over the Poor,” criticizes Roberts’ role in campaign finance decisions, including Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, alleging the rulings favored wealthy interests.

Article IV, titled “Violation of Oath: Unaccountable Executive Branch,” targets Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. United States, arguing that the presidential immunity ruling undermined constitutional checks and balances.

Article V, titled “Violation of Oath: Arbitrary Decisions,” accuses the court of relying too heavily on emergency docket rulings that the resolution says lack “meaningful analysis.”

Article VI, titled “Violation of Oath and Laws of the United States: Failure To Recuse,” alleges Roberts failed to recuse himself from cases involving law firms connected to his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, who worked as a legal recruiter.

The resolution concludes that Roberts “has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States” and therefore “warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.”

For Republicans and constitutional conservatives, Cohen’s resolution appears less like a serious impeachment effort and more like another attempt to intimidate the Supreme Court after Democrats failed to control its rulings. The measure may be dead on arrival, but it sends a clear political message: the left is still looking for ways to punish a court that refuses to rubber-stamp progressive priorities.