House Resolution Seeks to Impeach Federal Judge Over 'Inappropriately Lenient' Sentencing Decision

This resolution is the legislative equivalent of a formal complaint, seeking to impeach Judge Deborah Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The House is moving to remove her from office, citing "high crimes and misdemeanors" and violating the constitutional standard of "good behavior." The entire action stems from a single, highly controversial sentencing decision she made in October 2025.

The Sentencing Decision Under Fire

The core of the impeachment article is Judge Boardman’s handling of the case against Nicholas John Roske, who was convicted of attempting to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Michael Kavanaugh in June 2022. While the Department of Justice recommended a 30-year sentence, Judge Boardman imposed a sentence of eight years followed by a lifetime of supervised release. The resolution argues this was an “inappropriately lenient” sentence that interfered with the rule of law. The resolution details the severity of the crime, noting that Roske traveled across the country with a firearm, zip ties, and a tactical knife, and had extensively researched methods for silent killing and how to break into a home, all with the admitted intent to kill at least one Supreme Court Justice.

Ideology vs. Impartiality: The Judicial Misconduct Claim

The resolution claims the light sentence was a result of "ideological subversion of the judicial process." Specifically, it points to Judge Boardman’s acceptance of the defendant’s claim to be a transgender woman and her subsequent decision to factor the conditions of pre-trial confinement—which she felt did not respect this claim—into the sentencing. The resolution argues that by basing her decision partly on Roske’s claimed gender identity, the Judge ignored codified statutes and allowed “personal feelings” to undermine judicial authority. Essentially, the impeachment claim boils down to the assertion that the judge let a political or personal view influence a serious criminal sentence, violating the requirement for judicial impartiality and good behavior.

The Real-World Impact: Judicial Independence on the Line

For regular folks, this resolution is less about Judge Boardman specifically and more about the line between the legislative and judicial branches. Federal judges, who are appointed for life, are supposed to be independent, allowing them to make tough, sometimes unpopular decisions without fear of political reprisal. This resolution directly challenges that independence. When Congress initiates impeachment proceedings based on a disagreement over a specific sentence—even a highly controversial one—it sets a major precedent. If judges feel they could lose their job every time a sentencing decision is deemed too lenient or too harsh by politicians, their ability to use judicial discretion is chilled. This could push judges to hand down harsher sentences simply to avoid legislative oversight, impacting everyone who ever appears in a federal courtroom. The resolution, therefore, raises serious concerns about the separation of powers, suggesting that the legislature is attempting to review and punish judicial discretion based on political disagreement, rather than actual criminal misconduct or incapacitation.