IV 119th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 270 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 31, 2025 Mr. Biggs of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Clyde , Mr. Higgins of Louisiana , Mr. Nehls , Mrs. Luna , and Mr. Crane ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary RESOLUTION Removing James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for failure to remain in good behavior pursuant to section 1 of article III of the Constitution.

That James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, is removed for failing to maintain the standard of good behavior required of judges under section 1 of article III of the Constitution, and that the following article of removal be exhibited to the United States Senate. Article of removal exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in maintenance and support of its removal of him for failing to remain in good behavior. Article I: Abuse of power Chief Judge Boasberg, in violation of his oath of office, did knowingly and willfully use his judicial position to knowingly interfere with the President’s constitutional prerogatives and enforcement of the rule of law for political gain. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to create, eliminate, and regulate all Federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Section 1 of article III of the Constitution provides that [t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, thereby granting Congress the authority to remove a judge who fails to remain in good behavior while in office. The Constitution grants the President broad and expansive powers over the conduct of foreign policy and to ensure national security against foreign threats. The Supreme Court has ruled that the power to conduct foreign affairs is a political power which is largely beyond the scope of judicial inquiry or decision. As such, outside questions of the constitutionality of a provision or action, the Constitution places foreign policy decisions by the President and Congress beyond the scope of review by the courts along with actions taken pursuant to those decisions. In 1798, Congress passed the Alien Enemies Act ( 50 U.S.C. 21–24 ), which authorizes the President to make a public proclamation designating members of a foreign nation or government liable for apprehension and removal as alien enemies of the United States. The Act gives the President sole authority to determine the manner of the enemy aliens’ restraint and removal as well as to establish any regulations which are necessary to ensure public safety. On March 15, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued a proclamation declaring that all Venezuelan citizens who are members of the organization known as Tren de Aragua are liable to be apprehended and removed under the Alien Enemies Act due to the threat the organization poses to the United States and its clear entanglement with the government of Venezuela. Furthermore, due to the severity of Tren de Aragua’s crimes against the United States, the President declared that members of Tren de Aragua are ineligible for the benefits of section 22 of the Act and are therefore liable to immediate apprehension and removal. Pursuant to this declaration, the President directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to immediately take steps necessary to begin the apprehension and removal of members of Tren de Aragua who are present within the United States. Despite the broad authority given by the Constitution to the President when conducting matters of foreign affairs and national security, and the clear authority given to the President under the Alien Enemies Act, James E. Boasberg knowingly interfered with the President’s execution of foreign policy by ordering the return of members of a designated foreign terrorist organization to the United States. To justify his action, Boasberg cited questions concerning the interpretation of certain words and phrases which are intimately tied to the President’s foreign policy powers and therefore beyond the scope of review of the courts. In doing so, James E. Boasberg knowingly extended beyond the bounds of power of his office and unjustly interfered in the execution of foreign policy and national security for partisan purposes of halting the implementation of the President’s foreign policy and for political gain. Furthermore, James E. Boasberg has failed to disclose payments received from non-federal sources and abused his discretion during his term on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Accordingly, under the good behavior clause of section 1 of article III, these actions of James E. Boasberg constitute misbehavior and render him liable for removal from office. Wherefore, James E. Boasberg, by his conduct has failed to remain in good behavior should be removed from office and no longer be considered a judge of the United States.