In an era of political turbulence revolving around the judiciary, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on March 19, 2025, took a firm stand defending the independence of federal judges who have faced harsh criticism from former President Donald Trump and his supporters. The backdrop of this defense stems from a series of judicial rulings that have hindered the current administration's agenda. Breyer, who stepped down from the court in 2022, articulated that judges across the United States are cognizant of the current political climate yet emphasized the importance of adhering to the law when making decisions.
During a segment on CNN’s The Situation Room hosted by Wolf Blitzer, Breyer asserted, “Every judge in the nation is aware of the climate of the era,” yet they are tasked with making judicious decisions based on their interpretation of the law, which can sometimes lead to unpopular outcomes. This assertion was particularly salient in the wake of Trump’s recent calls for the impeachment of Judge James Boasberg, who halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 among other controversial rulings.
Trump's remarks, made via social media, included his declaration that judges like Boasberg ought to be impeached, remarking, “This judge... should be IMPEACHED!!!” He painted a dire picture of the judicial landscape, claiming, “WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY.” Such statements have sent ripples throughout political and legal communities, raising questions about the balance of judicial power and accountability.
In response to Trump's incendiary remarks, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a noteworthy statement that underscored the historical context of judicial independence in the United States. He declared, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Breyer lauded Roberts’ comments, referring to them as “informative and educational,” highlighting the fundamental principles that underpin the judicial system.
Breyer expressed concern that ushering in a culture of impeaching judges could undermine the legal framework established by the framers of the Constitution. “It doesn’t work by impeaching a judge because you don’t like his decision,” he warned, emphasizing that the legal system operates through established processes, including appeals, rather than retaliatory actions against judges. In historical context, Breyer referenced the 1805 attempted impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase, reinforcing that such drastic measures are not justified simply based on the outcome of a case.
Throughout the discussion, Blitzer pressed Breyer on the implications of Trump’s rhetoric on the judicial system. Breyer refrained from directly addressing Trump, stating, “Well, the statement doesn’t mention the president,” yet he acknowledged the timing and context were telling. He conveyed, “He’s trying to explain to the people of this country how the legal system works and how it doesn’t work,” insinuating that such comments could mislead the public about the role and function of judges.
This exchange not only showcased Breyer’s commitment to the integrity of the judiciary but also illuminated the ongoing tensions between the executive branch and judicial independence. With the political landscape constantly shifting, the dialogue surrounding judicial actions is likely to persist, challenging the boundaries and expectations placed upon the judiciary by both the government and public sentiment.
As the nation moves forward, Breyer’s arguments serve as a clarion call to preserve the independence of the judiciary. The values of fair hearing, proper legal recourse, and respect for the law must guide the actions of both lawmakers and citizens alike. If the whispers of impeachment grow louder, the very fabric of judicial integrity could be at stake, prompting a necessary reflection on the judicial process and the importance of maintaining a balanced division of powers.
