Washington, D.C. – A federal judge who ruled to halt the deportation of certain criminal gang members is now facing impeachment proceedings in Congress, as Republican lawmakers push back against what they call judicial overreach that endangers public safety.
On Tuesday, members of the House Judiciary Committee introduced articles of impeachment against Judge Rebecca Montrose, a Biden-appointed district court judge who last year issued a ruling preventing federal immigration authorities from deporting known gang affiliates under a specific interpretation of asylum laws. The decision sparked intense criticism from law enforcement agencies and conservative lawmakers, who accused Montrose of placing ideology over national security.
“This judge has willfully ignored the law and put American citizens at risk by preventing the removal of dangerous criminals from our country,” said Rep. Mark Reynolds (R-TX), one of the lawmakers leading the impeachment effort. “Her decision has allowed violent offenders to remain in the U.S., threatening the safety of our communities.”
Montrose’s ruling blocked the deportation of non-citizens who are affiliated with violent transnational gangs such as MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang. In her decision, Montrose cited concerns about the defendants facing persecution or extrajudicial punishment in their home countries. The ruling was based on an expanded interpretation of the Convention Against Torture, a legal framework that prevents the U.S. from returning individuals to countries where they may face severe harm.
Backlash from Law Enforcement and Legislators
The ruling drew immediate backlash from law enforcement groups, including the National Border Patrol Council and the Fraternal Order of Police, both of which have warned that the decision effectively creates a legal loophole allowing criminal organizations to operate freely inside the U.S.
“The consequences of this decision are clear: violent criminals who should be deported are instead being shielded by activist judges,” said National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd. “It ties the hands of immigration enforcement and makes our communities more dangerous.”
Republican lawmakers have seized on the ruling as an example of what they call a broader pattern of progressive judges undermining immigration law. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) signaled strong support for impeachment proceedings, calling Montrose’s ruling “a gross misinterpretation of the law that puts Americans in harm’s way.”
The articles of impeachment allege that Montrose violated her oath of office by obstructing federal immigration law and acting beyond her constitutional authority. If the impeachment effort moves forward, it would mark a rare instance of a federal judge being removed from the bench. Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached in U.S. history, with the most recent case occurring in 2010.
Democratic Response and Legal Defenses
Democratic lawmakers and civil rights groups have condemned the impeachment effort, calling it a politically motivated attack on judicial independence.
“This is nothing more than an effort to intimidate judges who make decisions that Republicans don’t like,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). “Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not rubber-stamp policies that the GOP finds convenient.”
Legal scholars are divided on the case, with some arguing that Montrose’s decision was a reasonable application of international asylum protections, while others contend it overstepped the bounds of judicial authority.
Montrose herself has remained silent on the impeachment proceedings but defended her ruling in a past legal opinion, stating that “the United States cannot, in good conscience, return individuals to countries where their lives would be in immediate danger.”
The impeachment effort is expected to be met with strong opposition in the Democrat-controlled Senate, but House Republicans are moving forward with hearings in the coming weeks. If successful, the case could set a precedent for future judicial impeachment efforts amid a politically charged battle over immigration law and judicial oversight.