Georgia GOP Representative Moves to Impeach Judge Over Federal Funds Ruling

FIRST ON FOX: Georgia Republican Representative Andrew Clyde has officially introduced articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. from Rhode Island. This action marks a significant moment as Judge McConnell once ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze federal funds.

The impeachment articles, initially shared with Fox News Digital, accuse Judge McConnell of abuse of power and conflicts of interest. They assert that he has “knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs.” If found guilty, the articles declare he should be removed from his judicial position.

Judge McConnell is presiding over a lawsuit filed by 22 states and the District of Columbia. This legal action challenges the Trump administration’s decision to withhold federal grant funds. Following Judge McConnell’s order requiring the administration to adhere to a restraining order, the government filed an appeal with the First Circuit. However, the appeal court declined to stay McConnell’s orders.

Andrew Clyde expressed his thoughts on the matter, stating, “The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in November, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient. Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president’s agenda and defy the will of the American people.” He described Judge McConnell’s actions as corrupt and dangerous, deeming them worthy of impeachment.

This impeachment effort follows Clyde’s announcement in early February regarding plans to draft impeachment articles. This came after Judge McConnell ordered the Trump administration to resume paused federal grants and loans. The articles formalize the impeachment charges against the judge.

Recent Controversies Surrounding Judicial Actions

Judge McConnell has faced escalating criticism from Trump supporters and conservative factions in recent weeks. A resurfaced video from 2021 has drawn particular attention, in which the judge cautioned that courts must “stand and enforce the rule of law against arbitrary and capricious actions by what could be a tyrant or could be whatnot.” The timing of this resurfacing coincides with heightened scrutiny of his rulings.

The impeachment articles reference this video, claiming that Judge McConnell has allowed his personal political opinions to interfere with his decisions and rulings. The documents assert that his demonstrated bias could warp his judgment in the federal freeze case.

Clyde’s Views on Judicial Activism

In a statement, Representative Clyde stated that he views what he calls “judicial activism” as the Left’s latest form of lawfare. He stressed the importance of Congress’s responsibility and constitutional authority to hold activist judges accountable through the impeachment process.

Clyde applauded his colleagues’ efforts to address the actions of perceived rogue judges, indicating a desire for swift action in the House regarding this critical matter.

The court, when contacted for comment, declined to provide a statement on the impeachment articles.

Similar Moves from Other Representatives

Clyde’s resolution for impeachment follows previous actions taken by Representative Brandon Gill, a Republican from Texas. Gill filed articles of impeachment against U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is currently overseeing a separate case involving the Trump administration’s use of an 18th-century wartime law. This law has faced scrutiny as it pertains to the deportation of Venezuelan nationals linked to the violent gang Tren de Aragua to El Salvador.

Gill is critical of Judge Boasberg, alleging that he abused his power by pausing the deportation order issued under the 1789 law.

Judicial Responses to Political Pressure

The increasing criticism of lower court judges who have ruled against Trump administration actions has prompted U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to make a rare statement this month. He asserted, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

This statement underscores the ongoing tensions between the judicial and legislative branches concerning the independence of the judiciary and the appropriate avenues for addressing grievances.

Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report.