Senator Ted Cruz ignited a firestorm during a recent Senate hearing, publicly calling for the impeachment of two federal judges – James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman. This wasn’t a casual suggestion; it was a meticulously constructed argument for an exceptionally rare and drastic measure, one reserved for the most profound breaches of public trust.
Cruz acknowledged the gravity of impeachment, noting that only fifteen federal judges in American history have faced such proceedings, typically for clear-cut criminal acts like bribery. However, he insisted that the framers of the Constitution envisioned impeachment extending beyond criminal behavior, encompassing actions that fundamentally undermine the constitutional order and inflict damage upon society itself.
The catalyst for Cruz’s call centers on two specific cases. Judge Boasberg authorized gag orders in 2023 related to subpoenas issued by Special Counsel Jack Smith during the investigation into the January 6th Capitol riot and Donald Trump’s role in the 2020 election. These orders initially concealed the subpoenas from targeted Republican members of Congress.
Simultaneously, Cruz sharply criticized Judge Boardman’s sentencing of Sophie Roske, the individual who attempted to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Despite the Department of Justice requesting a 30-year sentence, Boardman imposed only eight years, citing Roske’s transgender identity and self-reporting to authorities as mitigating factors. Cruz argued this leniency demonstrated a disturbing double standard.
The debate quickly fractured along party lines. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, accused Republicans of leveraging the threat of impeachment to intimidate the judiciary, particularly in cases where rulings have gone against the Trump administration. He framed the hearing as a deliberate attempt to pressure judges facing politically charged cases.
Cruz countered that Democratic concerns about threats to judges felt hollow when they simultaneously defended Boardman’s significantly reduced sentence for attempting to murder a Supreme Court Justice. He questioned the logic of offering leniency based on identity in such a violent crime, suggesting it undermined the seriousness of the offense.
A key point of contention surrounding Judge Boasberg’s actions involved the lack of awareness regarding the targets of the subpoenas. Witnesses testified that Boasberg signed the gag orders without knowing they applied to sitting senators, raising questions about whether he adequately considered the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress.
Legal scholars brought forward arguments that the Department of Justice policy at the time, which didn’t require disclosure of subpoenas targeting senators, did not supersede federal law. The core question became whether Boasberg acted with willful blindness or simply “rubber-stamped” the requests without sufficient scrutiny.
While the House of Representatives would initiate any impeachment proceedings, and the Senate would ultimately decide on conviction – requiring a two-thirds vote – the path forward remains highly uncertain. The prospect of securing sufficient Democratic support for conviction appears remote, yet Cruz’s actions have undeniably placed intense scrutiny on the conduct of these two judges and sparked a fierce debate about the boundaries of judicial power and accountability.
