WASHINGTON — Two members of the advisory body for the federal judiciary warned Tuesday about Congress turning to impeachment of judges if lawmakers are unhappy with decisions.

Four impeachment resolutions have been filed against three judges this year, after rulings that temporarily paused or slowed President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the federal government.

Since 1803, only 15 judges have faced impeachment, the last in 2010 on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements under penalty of perjury, according to the Federal Judicial Center.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit responded to a question about the resolutions in a press call with reporters Tuesday after a meeting of the U.S. Judicial Conference.

“One thing worth keeping in mind is if we dilute the standards for impeachment, that’s not just a problem for judges, that’s a problem for all three branches of government,” Sutton, the head of the conference’s executive committee, said.

And Judge Richard Sullivan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit described the articles of impeachment as a concern, saying people can appeal to a higher court.

“Impeachment is not, shouldn’t be, a short-circuiting of that process, and so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that,” Sullivan said.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over a decision to require the Trump administration to pay contractors for already completed work on behalf of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

And Ogles filed articles against Judge John Bates of the D.C. District after a ruling that required government health agencies to restore information about minority and other groups on their websites.

Reps. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., and Eli Crane, R-Ariz., introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Paul Engelmayer of the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York after he issued a ruling restricting access by DOGE officials to a sensitive Treasury Department payment system.

Van Orden, in an interview Tuesday, said Engelmayer and other judges in his district were political actors and it was “foolish” to assert that impeachment would short-circuit the appellate process.

“Listen, the judiciary has gotten completely out of control,” Van Orden said. “They’re not neutral arbiters of the law. They are so far left that they need to be held accountable for what they’re doing.”

When asked about whether Engelmayer’s conduct met the constitutional standard for impeachment, Van Orden said that the judge was acting in a partisan manner.

The resolutions are unlikely to succeed, as they would require the support of more than a dozen Senate Democrats to remove a federal judge.

Judicial funds

Sullivan separately said that the judiciary did not receive a requested anomaly in the pending continuing resolution that would fund increases in judicial security and public defenders. Sullivan, who heads the Judicial Conference’s committee on judicial security, said that after multiple years of flat funding for security, the judiciary may have to delay security upgrades or equipment replacements.

The Judicial Conference also requested that Congress create an additional 71 judgeships, similar to prior requests to increase the size of the federal judiciary in recent years. Most efforts to increase the federal judiciary have stalled in Congress amid concerns about which party’s president would fill the new judgeships.

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.