U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts criticizes Trump's call to impeach a federal judge

Chief Justice Roberts Rebukes Trump's Call to Impeach Federal Judge

In an extraordinary statement, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly criticized former President Donald Trump’s recent demand for the impeachment of a federal judge, calling it a dangerous attack on judicial independence.  

The controversy erupted after Trump, in a social media post, targeted U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over his federal election interference case. The former president accused her of bias and urged Republican lawmakers to impeach her—a move legal experts say undermines the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power.  

In a rare public response, Roberts emphasized the importance of respecting judicial decisions, even in politically charged cases. "The role of judges is to interpret the law without fear or favor," he said in a statement. "Public officials have a duty to uphold the integrity of our legal system, not undermine it."

Legal scholars and bipartisan leaders quickly rallied behind Roberts. Former Attorney General Eric Holder called Trump’s remarks "reckless and destructive," while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) reaffirmed that "judges must be free to rule based on the law, not political pressure."

Judge Chutkan, an Obama appointee, has drawn Trump’s ire after rejecting his attempts to delay his trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Legal analysts say Trump’s attacks follow a familiar pattern—discrediting courts that rule against him.  

The American Bar Association warned that such rhetoric could erode public trust in the judiciary. "When leaders attack judges personally, they weaken the foundation of our democracy," said ABA President Mary Smith.  

The White House declined to comment, but President Biden has previously condemned efforts to intimidate judges. Meanwhile, House Republicans showed no signs of pursuing impeachment, with Speaker Kevin McCarthy calling the idea "not under consideration."

As the legal battles continue, Roberts’ rare intervention serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s fragile independence—and the stakes of preserving it.