Staff Reports
Rep. Steve Cohen’s impeachment resolution against Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is the latest political broadside in a long war over the Supreme Court. The congressman filed H.Res.1309, laying out six articles that accuse the Chief Justice of turning the Court into a partisan actor. It landed in the House Judiciary Committee, where it will face the same fate most headline-grabbing stunts meet: plenty of noise, little action.
What Rep. Cohen actually filed
H.Res.1309 is a formal impeachment resolution that accuses Chief Justice Roberts of politicizing the Court, mishandling emergency procedures, and enabling decisions that, in Rep. Cohen’s view, advantaged one party. The filing cites the Court’s opinion in Louisiana v. Callais and the presidential‑immunity ruling as examples. Cohen lists ethics and recusal concerns too, and he is the sponsor — there are no signs of a broad coalition backing the measure.
Don’t call it justice — call it political theater
Let’s call a spade a spade: this looks like a last‑hurrah political play by a retiring congressman. Rep. Cohen is not running again, he introduced the resolution solo, and the House Judiciary Committee is where most impeachment ideas go to quietly expire. Impeaching a Supreme Court justice is rare for a reason. The only justice ever impeached was Samuel Chase over two centuries ago, and the Senate refused to remove him. Trying to turn policy disagreements and timing complaints into “high crimes and misdemeanors” sets a dangerous precedent.
The irony nobody mentions
There’s a little irony in Cohen’s list. One of the rulings he criticizes—on presidential immunity—was written in a way many conservatives praised. So what is this really about? It’s about blaming judges when the outcomes the left dislikes happen. If we let Congress remove justices whenever a party is unhappy, the Court becomes another battlefield for election-year politics instead of a neutral arbiter of law.
What’s next and why it matters
The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee — the normal first step. Committees can hold hearings, seek documents, or just let the clock run. Unless Cohen convinces several colleagues to sign on and demands a serious inquiry, H.Res.1309 will be a headline, not a constitutional turning point. Still, the attempt shows how polarized the debate over the Supreme Court has become, and it raises a real worry: impeachment used as a tool to punish judges for bad rulings risks eroding judicial independence.
Ultimately, this filing is a political message, not a serious bid to remove a Chief Justice. If the goal is to restore faith in the Court, impeachment theatrics are the wrong remedy. Real reform would mean clearer ethics rules, better transparency, and respect for the separation of powers — not using impeachments as a way to settle scores. For now, H.Res.1309 will make noise, spark headlines, and remind voters that our institutions are stuck in a partisan tug of war.
