Last month, President Trump called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Rachael Houston writes that while in previous decades presidents—including Trump—have often openly disagreed with federal court rulings, such direct attacks on judges’ decisions are uncommon and risk undermining public trust in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law. She argues that a healthy democracy depends on political leaders and citizens accepting the legitimacy of institutions – even when they disagree with their decisions.

In the United States, it’s not uncommon for presidents to disagree with decisions made by the federal courts. Over the years, political leaders across both major parties have expressed frustration when court rulings have conflicted with their policies. For example, in 1998, after a court struck down the Line-Item Veto Act, President Bill Clinton said, “I intend to appeal it.” President George W. Bush, after the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that Guantanamo detainees had the right to challenge their detention, responded with, “We’ll abide by the Court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it.” In 2020, when the Supreme Court declined to block a state supreme court decision extending the deadline for receiving mail-in ballots, President Donald Trump expressed on Twitter, “The Supreme Court decision on voting in Pennsylvania is a VERY dangerous one.” More recently, President Biden called the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973) in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) “a tragic error by the Supreme Court.”

From disagreement to questioning judges’ legitimacy

Last month, however, we saw a swing from presidential disagreement, but with acknowledgement, of judges’ rulings to an outright challenge to their authority and legitimacy. In March 2025, President Donald Trump responded to a ruling by US District Judge James Boasberg that temporarily halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Trump called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and demanded his impeachment. In response, the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts, issued a rare public statement emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to judicial decisions and underscoring the importance of appellate review and judicial independence. While impeachment of judges is permitted under the Constitution, it is extraordinarily rare and typically reserved for cases of ethical or criminal misconduct—not mere disagreement over legal rulings. In fact, only 15 federal judges have been impeached in US history, and just eight were convicted.

There is an important distinction between criticizing a court’s reasoning and questioning the very legitimacy of the judicial branch itself. Most of the time we see presidents who disagree with court decisions do so within the bounds of respectful institutional discourse, recognizing the judiciary’s constitutional role. But in rare instances, presidential rhetoric has gone beyond disagreement to outright attacks on the courts’ integrity. Such moments—like threatening impeachment in response to an unfavorable ruling—pose risks to public trust in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law. When political leaders suggest that judges are not simply mistaken but illegitimate, they undermine the foundation of judicial independence and weaken confidence in the rule of law.

We’ve seen these attacks before. In 1804, President Thomas Jefferson, frustrated by what he saw as partisan behavior from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, supported his impeachment. Chase, a staunch Federalist, had made overtly political statements from the bench. The House of Representatives voted to impeach him, but the Senate acquitted him. The episode ultimately reinforced a critical principle: judges should not be removed simply for their judicial philosophy or political leanings. Judicial independence was seen as essential to preserving the separation of powers. Now, more than two centuries later, that principle is again being tested.

Criticism of judicial reasoning is a healthy feature of democratic government. Disputing legal interpretations is part of the process. But there’s a critical difference between disagreeing with a court’s reasoning and undermining the legitimacy of the judiciary itself. When political leaders frame judges as corrupt, biased, or unfit, they send a signal that the courts are not simply wrong – they’re untrustworthy. Over time, this kind of rhetoric can threaten the judiciary’s foundational role as an impartial arbiter of the law and erode the public’s confidence in its ability to deliver justice fairly—even when it’s politically inconvenient.

The power of words

What political leaders say matters. Political behavior research shows that when leaders attack institutions, the public takes notice – and often internalizes those messages. People tend to look to political elites like presidents – especially those with whom they agree – to help interpret events and institutions. When leaders label the judiciary as corrupt, biased, or politically motivated, their supporters are likely to adopt those views. This is especially dangerous in today’s hyper-polarized environment, where political opponents are often seen not just as wrong, but as a threat to the nation’s well-being. When this kind of animosity is combined with attacks on the judiciary, the risk is stark: rather than being seen as impartial judges of the law, judges may be viewed as enemies of the people, further undermining trust in the courts and the legal system.

“In Marbury v. Madison the U.S. Supreme C” (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) by sniggie

Recent polling data shows a notable shift in public opinion. More and more people, particularly those aligned with certain political factions, are now expressing support for impeaching federal judges who rule against their political preferences. This willingness to target judges for their rulings highlights the danger of delegitimizing the judiciary and the broader risks this poses to democratic institutions. When the courts’ independence is threatened, the very foundation of the system begins to crack.

The federal judiciary depends on public trust

The judiciary doesn’t have a military or enforcement arm. It relies on the public’s trust and the willingness of other branches—and the public—to respect its decisions. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” The strength of the judiciary is rooted in something called diffuse support—a deep, enduring respect for the courts as legitimate, neutral institutions. This allows courts to make unpopular decisions that are still accepted as fair. Without this support, judicial authority begins to erode.

Unfortunately, recent trends show that this foundational support may be weakening. Gallup polling shows a dramatic decline in public confidence in the Supreme Court, from 62 percent in 2000 to just 40 percent in 2023. A similar Gallup poll in 2024 showed that only 35 percent of Americans express confidence in the judicial system overall. This confidence is split along partisan lines: 71 percent of Republicans express confidence in the Court, compared to just 24 percent of Democrats. This is troubling because a healthy democracy depends on citizens accepting the legitimacy of institutions – even when they disagree with their decisions.

When diffuse support weakens, courts become vulnerable to political retaliation. Impeachment is an important constitutional tool, but it was designed to address serious misconduct, not to retaliate against legal disagreements. Using it as a political weapon would set a dangerous precedent, threatening the separation of powers and judicial independence. Even if these threats are not acted upon, the rhetoric alone can have a chilling effect, making judges hesitant to make difficult decisions.

Protecting the judiciary is a shared responsibility

This is a moment for all of us—not just elected officials but also citizens and civic leaders—to reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law. The judiciary is not above criticism. Judges, like all public officials, should be held accountable for their reasoning and conduct, especially when there is credible evidence to suggest they are not acting in a neutral or unbiased way. But accountability does not mean delegitimization. If we believe in a constitutional system that tempers majority power, protects minority rights, and checks abuses, then we must protect the institution most directly tasked with upholding those principles: the judiciary.

To protect the judiciary, we must engage in thoughtful, respectful discourse, focusing on legal reasoning rather than resorting to personal attacks or sweeping claims of bias. Educating ourselves and others about the role of the courts and judicial independence is crucial, as many Americans may not fully understand how the judiciary functions. By fostering a better understanding of judicial processes, we can reduce the impact of divisive rhetoric. Additionally, supporting judicial security and transparency is vital, ensuring that judges are safe from threats and harassment while maintaining openness in their decision-making processes. Finally, we must hold political leaders accountable for rhetoric that undermines public trust in democratic institutions.

Disagreement with judicial rulings is natural in a pluralistic society. However, we must recognize that the judiciary’s role is to apply the law fairly, even when those decisions are politically inconvenient. Federal judges are insulated from elections for a reason: to enable them to act independently and uphold constitutional principles without political pressure. This system only works if the public respects it.

In this moment of heightened division, the judiciary may be one of the last institutions capable of standing apart from partisan battles. But it will not remain that way unless we actively protect it. Preserving judicial legitimacy is not about defending specific rulings but about upholding the principle that law, not politics, should govern judicial decision-making. It is our collective responsibility to safeguard this principle.

• Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.