Resolution Seeks to Impeach Federal Judge Boasberg Over Nondisclosure Orders in Congressional Subpoena Cases

This resolution kicks off the process to impeach James E. Boasberg, the Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The core accusation? That Judge Boasberg committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” by improperly authorizing nondisclosure orders related to an FBI project called ARCTIC FROST. Specifically, the resolution claims these orders restricted Members of Congress from performing their constitutional legislative duties, violating the separation of powers. This isn't about a specific ruling; it's a direct challenge to the Judge's authority in managing a sensitive investigation.

The Judicial Decision Under Fire

The resolution zeros in on Judge Boasberg’s authorization of Special Counsel John L. Smith to issue nondisclosure orders. These orders allegedly prevented the disclosure of information related to subpoenas served on various entities. The concern is that these orders covered at least 11 Members of Congress—including Senators Marsha Blackburn, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley—preventing them from being informed about legal actions that might affect their legislative work. The resolution argues this effectively muzzles Congress, limiting its ability to conduct oversight or legislate effectively, which is a major constitutional red flag.

A key example cited is an order prohibiting AT&T from informing Senator Cruz about a subpoena for a minimum of one year. While the Judge reportedly found "reasonable grounds" to believe disclosure would lead to evidence destruction or witness tampering, the resolution asserts he lacked a “clear reasonable basis” for this finding concerning a sitting Senator. For the average person, this is less about the legal drama and more about the power dynamic: Can a judge’s order effectively block a lawmaker from knowing they are part of a federal investigation? The resolution says no, arguing that this action conflicts with 2 U.S. Code § 6628, which requires Senate offices to be notified about legal processes seeking Senate data, even if a court order exists.

Who Else Was Subpoenaed?

The impeachment effort isn't just focused on the congressional members. The resolution also alleges that the Special Counsel issued "frivolous subpoenas" targeting a list of conservative nonprofit organizations and activists. The list includes groups like the Conservative Partnership Institute and individuals such as Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows. The resolution strongly implies that the Judge’s authorization of these subpoenas, combined with the nondisclosure orders, demonstrates a pattern of judicial impropriety and political bias that warrants his removal from the bench.

The Real-World Impact of This Showdown

For most people, the impeachment of a federal judge might seem like Washington inside baseball, but the implications are huge for the balance of power. Federal judges have significant independence to ensure they can make tough, impartial decisions—even if those decisions are unpopular or politically sensitive. This resolution uses the ultimate tool of legislative oversight—impeachment—to challenge a judge’s management of an ongoing investigation. If successful, it sets a precedent that a judge can be removed for authorizing specific investigative steps that Congress (or a political faction within it) disagrees with. This could seriously chill the willingness of future judges to approve sensitive subpoenas or nondisclosure orders, potentially hamstringing federal investigations that involve politically powerful individuals.

This isn't just about Judge Boasberg; it’s about the independence of the entire federal judiciary. The resolution argues the Judge compromised the separation of powers by restricting Congress. However, the counter-argument is that using impeachment over specific case management decisions compromises judicial independence. If judges have to constantly look over their shoulder for fear of political reprisal from Congress, the integrity and impartiality of the courts, which are essential for everyone from the construction worker to the coder, could be severely damaged. The resolution makes a strong case for removal based on alleged constitutional overreach, but the political context surrounding the underlying investigation makes this action highly controversial.