A majority of voters say they support impeaching James Boasberg, the federal judge linked to the Biden administration’s “Arctic Frost” investigation, which reportedly involved surveillance of Republican members of Congress.
Meanwhile, 26% of respondents said they do not consider the controversy serious, including 12% who said it is “not at all” serious, Just the News reported.
The survey comes amid a GOP-led effort to make Boasberg the first impeached judge since 2010. A total of 15 federal judges have been impeached by the House, but only eight were removed by the Senate.
Republican lawmakers in the House want to move against Boasberg after revelations that he and Judge Beryl Howell issued non-disclosure orders shielding nearly 200 subpoenas targeting Republican organizations, officials, and donors under former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed by the Biden Justice Department.
Last week, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) said he is drafting articles of impeachment against Boasberg. Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) also signaled his intent to pursue impeachment. It is not yet clear whether Howell will also face similar action, The National Pulse reported.
The outlet added that Smith issued 197 subpoenas affecting more than 430 Republican groups and individuals as part of what is being described as the “Arctic Frost” probe. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called the investigation a “fishing expedition” targeting the Republican political apparatus.
New Breakthrough In Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Case Sends Shockwave Through DCRead More
Among the subpoenas were requests for telecom companies to hand over cell data from about a dozen Republican lawmakers. The disclosure orders signed by Boasberg and Howell prevented the companies from notifying the affected members.
“Radical activist judge James Boasberg continues to weaponize his judicial authority and target his political opponents,” Gill said in a statement. “Judge Boasberg facilitated the egregious Arctic Frost scandal, where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators. His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel.”
Boasberg, appointed by former President Barack Obama, serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. He has faced criticism in the past for rulings that affected Trump administration policies.
According to reports, the subpoenas targeted political vendors and financial institutions linked to Trump-aligned PACs, suggesting that Smith’s office sought to trace potential monetary connections between consulting firms, advisors, and nonprofits. The goal appeared to be establishing grounds for possible RICO charges if prosecutors had secured a conviction against Trump.
In March, Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona introduced a resolution to remove Judge Boasberg from office under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution — an approach that would bypass impeachment and the two-thirds vote required in the Senate, JustTheNews reported.
Biggs said federal judges “serve during good behavior” and argued that Congress has the authority to remove those who fail to meet that standard.
“Most Americans believe that there is lifetime tenure for a federal judge. That unless impeached, a federal judge can serve until death,” Biggs told Just the News. “But lifetime tenure is not guaranteed, nor mentioned, in the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 permits a federal judge to serve only ‘during good behavior.’”
Boasberg had previously blocked President Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal immigrants alleged to be members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. He ordered government planes en route to El Salvador carrying the alleged gang members to return to the United States.
Biggs said such actions exceeded judicial authority and interfered with presidential powers over foreign policy and national security.
“Maybe firing such a judge could be the answer,” Biggs said. “It would certainly be specific deterrence that would prevent that type of misconduct from such a judge. And it would provide general deterrence in that all other federal judges would think more about applying the law to the case rather than attempting to twist the law so that the judge can attack a political adversary.”
