By Michelle A. Behnke
The American Bar Association firmly maintains that judicial independence is vital to preserving the integrity of our system of justice. Efforts to intimidate or remove judges for their lawful decisions risk turning our courts into arenas of political retribution rather than impartial arbiters of justice.
The ABA is alarmed by the growing pattern of lawmakers threatening or starting impeachment processes against sitting judges because of disagreement with rulings they have made. The independence of the judiciary is the most essential safeguard of a free society, the rule of law in our country and public confidence in our justice system. Threats to remove judges who are issuing decisions based on the facts and the law cannot be tolerated.
State representatives in Texas and Utah recently have filed impeachment articles against judges who issued rulings with which they disagreed. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights announced that they will hold hearings that will focus on impeaching “rogue” judges but have postponed them as of now. Earlier this year, members of the U.S. House attempted to impeach six separate federal judges over their rulings. Recently, the U.S. deputy attorney general attacked the judiciary, urging young lawyers to join what he called a “war” against “rogue activist judges.”
The separation of powers and public respect for our judicial system are critical to our functioning democracy. If judges feel pressured to weigh political matters in their decision-making rather than concentrating solely on the facts of the case, the applicable law and the Constitution, the justice system suffers.
Citizens, including members of Congress, should be able to analyze, discuss and debate judges’ rulings. But calls for impeachment without any impeachable offense, accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric, undermine the public’s trust in the rule of law and our constitutional government. Historically, impeachment power by Congress against judges has only been used after a conviction for a serious crime or corrupt or other egregious conduct. In the last 222 years, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach only 15 federal judges, and only eight of those impeachments were followed by convictions in the Senate.
In March, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement on the topic saying that, “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.”
Justice must be administered according to legal principles and facts, not driven by political expediency or public opinion. Disagreement with a ruling does not justify removal; instead, it should lead to healthy debate, legal challenges and the development of the law through the appellate process.
The strength of our democracy lies in the separation of powers and the independence of our courts. We urge policymakers to foster a judicial environment where judges can decide cases based on law, free from political influence, intimidation or threats of impeachment. Only then can we ensure a fair, unbiased system that preserves the rights of all Americans.
————————
Michelle A. Behnke, a member of the Boardman Clark law firm in Madison, Wisconsin, is president of the American Bar Association. Prior to joining the firm, she was the principal of the firm Michelle Behnke & Associates, where her practice focused on business, real estate and estate planning. Behnke’s experience in the real estate area was recognized by her election to membership in the American College of Real Estate Lawyers. She has also been elected into The American Law Institute, the American Bar Foundation Fellows and the Wisconsin Bar Foundation Fellows.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/11/statement-from-aba-president-re-judicial-independence/)
The American Bar Association firmly maintains that judicial independence is vital to preserving the integrity of our system of justice. Efforts to intimidate or remove judges for their lawful decisions risk turning our courts into arenas of political retribution rather than impartial arbiters of justice.
The ABA is alarmed by the growing pattern of lawmakers threatening or starting impeachment processes against sitting judges because of disagreement with rulings they have made. The independence of the judiciary is the most essential safeguard of a free society, the rule of law in our country and public confidence in our justice system. Threats to remove judges who are issuing decisions based on the facts and the law cannot be tolerated.
State representatives in Texas and Utah recently have filed impeachment articles against judges who issued rulings with which they disagreed. The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights announced that they will hold hearings that will focus on impeaching “rogue” judges but have postponed them as of now. Earlier this year, members of the U.S. House attempted to impeach six separate federal judges over their rulings. Recently, the U.S. deputy attorney general attacked the judiciary, urging young lawyers to join what he called a “war” against “rogue activist judges.”
The separation of powers and public respect for our judicial system are critical to our functioning democracy. If judges feel pressured to weigh political matters in their decision-making rather than concentrating solely on the facts of the case, the applicable law and the Constitution, the justice system suffers.
Citizens, including members of Congress, should be able to analyze, discuss and debate judges’ rulings. But calls for impeachment without any impeachable offense, accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric, undermine the public’s trust in the rule of law and our constitutional government. Historically, impeachment power by Congress against judges has only been used after a conviction for a serious crime or corrupt or other egregious conduct. In the last 222 years, the House of Representatives has voted to impeach only 15 federal judges, and only eight of those impeachments were followed by convictions in the Senate.
In March, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement on the topic saying that, “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.”
Justice must be administered according to legal principles and facts, not driven by political expediency or public opinion. Disagreement with a ruling does not justify removal; instead, it should lead to healthy debate, legal challenges and the development of the law through the appellate process.
The strength of our democracy lies in the separation of powers and the independence of our courts. We urge policymakers to foster a judicial environment where judges can decide cases based on law, free from political influence, intimidation or threats of impeachment. Only then can we ensure a fair, unbiased system that preserves the rights of all Americans.
————————
Michelle A. Behnke, a member of the Boardman Clark law firm in Madison, Wisconsin, is president of the American Bar Association. Prior to joining the firm, she was the principal of the firm Michelle Behnke & Associates, where her practice focused on business, real estate and estate planning. Behnke’s experience in the real estate area was recognized by her election to membership in the American College of Real Estate Lawyers. She has also been elected into The American Law Institute, the American Bar Foundation Fellows and the Wisconsin Bar Foundation Fellows.
(https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/11/statement-from-aba-president-re-judicial-independence/)
