Supreme Court's John Roberts Faces Impeachment Resolution from Democrat
Source: Newsweek
Published May 22, 2026 at 02:54 PM EDT updated May 22, 2026 at 08:43 PM EDT
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is facing a new impeachment resolution put forward by a House Democrat.
The long-shot effort was introduced on Thursday by Representative Steve Cohen. The Tennessee Democrat announced last week that he would forgo his reelection bid after it became clear he was unlikely to win, as the state moved swiftly to gerrymander following a seismic Supreme Court opinion in late April that gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Thus far, no co-sponsors have supported Cohen's resolution. Given that Republicans narrowly control the House, the resolution is not expected to advance, but it signals the level of frustration many Democrats feel with the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
In a statement announcing the resolution, Cohen said that Roberts has led the court to be "understood as biased: with decisions designed to benefit Republicans at the expense of representative government, seemingly contradictory and unexplained orders, and a pattern of ethical breaches that raises questions about the role of the wealthy.". "I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that while John Roberts remains Chief Justice, correcting this misconduct and ensuring the Justices and the Court itself comply with their legal obligations will be impossible," the Democrat said.
Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-john-roberts-impeachment-steve-cohen-11984709
Link to Rep. Cohen PRESS RELEASE - Congressman Cohen Introduces Six Articles of Impeachment Against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT (summaries from press release)
Article One – The Chief Justice allowed the Court to become a partisan force, in breach of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, due process, and equal protection of the laws, and the Chief Justice’s obligation to “administer justice without respect to persons” and “faithfully and impartially” discharge his duties. Time and time again, the Court has violated its own principles with a pattern of interfering in elections on behalf of Republican candidates.
For example, in the eight days following Callais, Tennessee dismantled its only majority-Black congressional district, splitting Memphis into three pieces. Alabama and South Carolina indicated they would follow suit. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved Democratic redistricting amendment, a case the Court declined to stay, within days. In contrast, the Court bypassed its rules to enable Louisiana to redraw its map in time for the 2026 elections. Similarly, on an expedited basis, the Supreme Court vacated lower court injunctions preventing Alabama from redistricting and allowed a new map to take effect eight days before the primary election. The asymmetrical application of the Purcell principle in a way that benefits Republicans demonstrates either the Chief Justice’s inability to administer the court impartially, or that his gross negligence would prevent him from faithfully discharging his duties.
The asymmetrical application of the Purcell principle in a way that benefits Republicans demonstrates either the Chief Justice’s inability to administer the court impartially, or that the Chief Justice is so negligent that he was unable to foresee that releasing the Callais decision days after Virginia’s referendum, and then subsequently picking and choosing which states will be redistricted with one line orders, would be perceived as political by the American people, and, in so doing, destroy their confidence in the neutrality and independence of the Court.
Article Two – Under Chief Justice Roberts’ stewardship, the Court systematically preferred the powerful over the people, undermining the notions of popular sovereignty, representation, and democracy at the heart of a constitutional republic. Taken together, Chief Justice Roberts led the Court to license a system of political exclusion that could entrench minority rule at the expense of the will of the people – a grave violation, with incalculable damage, to participatory democracy enshrined in our Constitution.
Article Three – Chief Justice Roberts violated his oath to “do equal right to the poor and the rich” by endorsing a corrupt campaign finance system that privileges the wealthy at the expense of all other citizens.
Article Four – Chief Justice Roberts violated the Constitution of the United States and his Judicial Oath by usurping Congress’s legislative role and exempting the President of the United States from criminal liability for illegal conduct. In placing a single person above the law, Chief Justice Roberts breached his oath to “administer justice without respect to persons.”
Article Five: Chief Justice Roberts’s leadership of the Court is marked by the Court’s arbitrary, unexplained, and inconsistent decisions that violate the Constitutional protections of the parties.
Article Six: Chief Justice Roberts violated his ethical and statutory obligations by failing to fully report assets on his financial disclosures and refusing to recuse himself from cases that presented perceptions of a conflict of interest. While on the bench adjudicating some of the most sensitive matters, Jane Sullivan Roberts, the Chief Justice’s spouse, was being paid millions of dollars to recruit attorneys by the very firms litigating before the Court. This conduct directly violates 28 U.S.C. § 455. More importantly, it violates the constitutional structure and the parties’ constitutional rights to an independent and impartial magistrate to adjudicate their claims.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I get those white guys mixed up all the time! 
(Scalia's name has been invoked a lot over the past few years)
I used to live outside his district, and wished he were MY Representative. Now, I DO live in his district, and wish he were just the brave, outspoken Representative in the district next door!
