The Supreme Court handed down a ruling that was about as subtle as a foghorn: lower courts are not allowed to issue stays that block the termination of Temporary Protected Status. Crystal clear. No room for creative interpretation. No decoder ring required.
So naturally, Judge Allison Burroughs, who was appointed by Barack Obama, decided to go ahead and issue a stay anyway, preventing the Trump administration from ending TPS for Somali nationals. According to USA Journal, the judge apparently looked at the highest court's explicit instructions and thought, "Nah, I'm good."
Enter Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles, who announced on Monday that he would be filing articles of impeachment against Burroughs. His spokesman told Townhall that the Supreme Court's position was unmistakable and that this judge is basically treating the Constitution like a suggestion box. Ogles himself posted on social media that he'd had enough of what he called unconstitutional judicial activism.
Now here's where things get spicy. Will impeachment actually succeed? That's a whole different ballgame. Removing a federal judge from the bench requires a two thirds vote in the Senate, which is roughly the political equivalent of getting every person at Thanksgiving dinner to agree on something. Historically, "I think your ruling stinks" hasn't been enough to boot a judge. But "you literally defied an explicit Supreme Court decision" carries a bit more weight than your average policy disagreement.
The good news for Ogles is that the House vote only needs a simple majority, and Republicans currently control that chamber. Even if the Senate never convicts, the impeachment vote alone forces every member of Congress to publicly pick a side on whether a district judge can just ignore the Supreme Court when the mood strikes.
This whole saga is part of a much larger pattern that has become almost comically predictable. District judges appointed by Democratic presidents have been cranking out nationwide injunctions and stays against Trump's immigration agenda at a rate that would make a factory assembly line jealous. The founders designed judicial independence to protect the rule of law, not to give any single judge in any random district court the power to veto an entire presidential administration's policies.
Meanwhile, Ogles has apparently been making enough waves that left leaning clean energy PACs have reportedly dropped nearly $700,000 trying to unseat him. When political action committees are spending that kind of money to get rid of you, it's generally a sign that you're touching some nerves in all the right places.
Whether or not this impeachment effort goes anywhere beyond the House floor, the message is pretty straightforward: if the Supreme Court draws a line, maybe don't immediately leap over it and dare Congress to do something about it. Because apparently, at least one congressman is happy to take that dare.
Read more conservative news commentary at: USA Journal News
