PRIA Logo™
119-hres-1309119th Congress

Impeaching John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Sponsored By: Representative Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

Introduced

Summary

Impeachment of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. This bill would impeach the Chief Justice for alleged violations of his constitutional oath and duties, laying out six articles that claim he undermined judicial independence, enabled minority rule, favored wealthy interests, protected an executive from accountability, issued arbitrary emergency orders, and failed to recuse amid his spouse’s paid legal placements.

Show full summary
  • If convicted, it seeks removal from office and disqualification from holding any U.S. office of honor, trust, or profit.
  • It accuses the Court of decisions that allow state-level entrenchment of political power and weaken equal political participation for voters.
  • It raises ethical and process concerns about emergency docket use and alleges conflicts tied to the Chief Justice’s spouse receiving paid placements, including payments over $100,000.

Personalized for You

How does this bill affect your finances?

Personalize government policy and PRIA will tell you what this bill means for your household, plus every other piece of legislation we track. PRIA reads each provision against your financial profile to show you exactly what matters to your wallet.

Free to download

Bill Overview

Analyzed Economic Effects

6 provisions identified: 1 benefits, 4 costs, 1 mixed.

Impeachment and possible Senate removal

This resolution would impeach Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. It would send six articles of impeachment to the Senate describing alleged oath violations. If the Senate convicts, he would be removed from office and barred from holding federal office.

Court rulings favoring big donors

This resolution would allege the Chief Justice joined rulings like Citizens United, McCutcheon, and AFPF v. Bonta. It would say those decisions loosened campaign finance limits and helped wealthy donors and corporations. It would say that undermines equal political participation for ordinary voters.

Less review of partisan maps

This resolution would allege the Chief Justice joined decisions like Rucho and Louisiana v. Callais that limited judicial review of partisan gerrymandering. It would say the Court weakened Voting Rights Act protections for majority‑minority districts. It would say those changes let state legislatures draw maps that can reduce minority representation.

Ruling on presidential criminal immunity

This resolution would allege the Chief Justice joined a decision in Trump v. United States that the resolution describes as granting near‑absolute immunity to a former President. It would say that ruling could place former Presidents beyond criminal laws like bribery. It would say that outcome would weaken checks and balances.

Court emergency orders and timing

This resolution would allege that the Chief Justice greatly expanded the Supreme Court's emergency docket. It would say the Court often issued orders with little explanation and unclear precedential value. It would say one order bypassed the Court's 32‑day waiting practice and affected more than 100,000 voters during a 2026 primary, enabling mid‑decade redistricting.

Chief Justice recusal and disclosure failures

This resolution would allege the Chief Justice violated the recusal standard in 28 U.S.C. § 455 and did not disclose his spouse's recruiter earnings. It would note recruiter fees can exceed $100,000 per placement and reported commissions from 2007 to 2014 totaled over $10 million. It would say those facts raise reasonable doubts about his impartiality.

Sponsors & CoSponsors

Sponsor

Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]

TN • D

Cosponsors

There are no cosponsors for this bill.

Roll Call Votes

No roll call votes available for this bill.

View on Congress.gov
Back to Legislation