(revised draft)
Happy birthday, U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen!
Thank you for your sponsoring a U.S. House of Representatives resolution proposing the impeachment of United States Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN GLOVER ROBERTS, JR.
I agree with Memphis U.S. Representative Steve Cohen's resolution, H. Res. 1309, which proposes six grounds for impeaching United States Supreme Court Chief Justice JOHN GLOVER ROBERTS, JR. ROBERTS and his funders and supporters -- today's ROBBER BARONS -- must answer for their high crimes and misdemeanors before the United States Senate, which Gladstone called the world's greatest deliberative body.
Fun fact: at age 17.5, my first employer was U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, the day before my first class at Georgetown, after I heard Ralph Nader speak in Gaston Hall on the Feast of Saint Augustine.
This is history. Rep. Cohen's imepeachment resolution deserves an historic trial in the United States Senate.
119th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1309
Impeaching John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States
for high crimes and misdemeanors.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 21, 2026
Mr. Cohen submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Impeaching John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States
for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the
United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that
the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment 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 John Glover Roberts, Jr.,
Chief Justice of the United States, in maintenance and support of its
impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors in violation
of his constitutional oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend
the Constitution of the United States.
article i: failure of stewardship: politization of the court
The Chief Justice administers the Court and is a steward of
judicial independence. Chief Justice Roberts has failed to uphold the
principles of impartiality and independence by allowing the Court to
become a political instrument, selectively invoking the Purcell
principle and repeatedly inserting the Court into the electoral process
in a manner that has consistently favored one political party.
Most recently, in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court released its
decision in the middle of primary elections already underway, prompting
states across the country to rush mid-decade redistricting. In
Louisiana itself, more than 100,000 voters had already cast ballots
when the Court ruled the existing districts unlawful.
This is the context of a national cascade of mid-decade partisan
redistricting, instigated by President Donald Trump and his pressure on
Republican-led state legislatures. The Court is well aware of these
circumstances, with multiple cases reaching its emergency docket. 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, it bypassed its own 32-day waiting period under
Supreme Court Rule 45.3 to finalize the decision on an emergency basis,
enabling 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 the Chief Justice's inability to administer the court
impartially.
In a moment of hyper-partisanship and visible, persistent
presidential pressure on the Court, the Callais decision and its timing
would undoubtedly be perceived as political. This pattern of
unpredictable intervention in the electoral process--applying the
Purcell principle when it favors one party and abandoning it when it
does not--demonstrates the Chief Justice's inability to administer the
Court independently and impartially, in violation of his constitutional
and statutory obligations and the Judicial Oath.
article ii: violation of oaths: entrenchment of minority rule
The Constitution establishes a federal and state government
designed to protect the rights and liberties of the people of the
United States and to remain accountable to them through elections. It
guarantees a republican form of government in the states, the freedoms
of expression, assembly, and petition, and due process of law. The
Framers of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth
Amendments expanded these protections by guaranteeing equal protection
under the law and extending the franchise to all citizens age 18 and
older. These provisions are substantive protections designed to ensure
that government remains representative of, responsive to, and
accountable to the people.
Chief Justice Roberts has violated the core structure of the
Constitution by giving state legislatures license to draw districts and
jurisdictional lines in ways that ensure only favored viewpoints can
prevail, discriminating against minority viewpoints and communities and
breaking the core constitutional commitment to popular sovereignty.
In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Chief Justice authored a decision
abandoning the Court's responsibility to protect against government
authority being used to favor specific viewpoints, declaring it a
political question beyond judicial reach. In Louisiana v. Callais, he
joined a decision dismantling the Voting Rights Act's protections for
majority-minority districts, empowering state legislatures to privilege
political viewpoint over other factors when drawing districts and
jurisdictions. Together, these decisions undermined the political
rights of citizens and empowered those currently in elected office to
use government authority to entrench themselves and those with
preferred political perspectives, despite the will of the electorate.
Taken to its logical end, such a system allows a minority to maintain
control of the state and federal government even after popular opinion
shifts against it.
In so doing, Chief Justice Roberts gravely violated his oath to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States, to faithfully
and impartially discharge and perform the duties of the Chief Justice,
and to administer justice without respect to persons.
article iii: violation of oath: empowering the rich over the poor
In the Judicial Oath, Chief Justice Roberts swore to ``do equal
right to the poor and to the rich.'' However, his conduct has
demonstrated a bias toward wealth. The Roberts Court systematically
dismantled campaign finance laws designed to protect the integrity of
our electoral process in Citizens United v. FEC, McCutcheon v. FEC, and
AFPF v. Bonta. In joining Citizens United and authoring the Court's
opinions in McCutcheon and Bonta, Chief Justice Roberts entrenched a
system that favored and consolidated power in the wealthy. These
decisions undermine the core premise of our Constitution, that every
citizen can equally participate in governance. By privileging
candidates who can raise large sums of money and the rich people and
corporations that provide those resources, Chief Justice Roberts
undermined the structure of the United States Constitution and the
political rights of the people of the United States.
article iv: violation of oath: unaccountable executive branch
In taking the Judicial Oath, Chief Justice Roberts swore to
``administer justice without respect to persons.'' However, in Trump v.
United States, the Chief Justice ruled that a former President has
absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. This ruling privileges a
select few from the generally applicable criminal law, placing former
Presidents out of the reach of legislative and judicial authority. This
ruling effectively means a President is exempt from criminal bribery
charges. It undermines the core structure of the Constitution of checks
and balances and the constitutional obligation of equal protection
under the law. In such conduct, Chief Justice Roberts violated his oath
by privileging those in power over the laws of the land.
article v: violation of oath: arbitrary decisions
Under Chief Justice Roberts's administration of the Supreme Court,
the Court has greatly expanded its use of the emergency docket. These
orders, styled as temporary interventions but in effect often providing
a conclusive disposition of the matters, lack any meaningful analysis
of the issues, explanation of the decision, or guidance for future
application. The precedential value of these orders is unclear, and
lower courts have struggled to apply them. Rulings without explanation,
especially those determined on an incomplete record, are inherently
arbitrary. These orders violate the parties' due process and equal
protection rights. As the leader and administrator of the Court, Chief
Justice Roberts has an obligation to ensure that the Supreme Court
operates in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United
States.
article vi: violation of oath and laws of the united states: failure to
recuse
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives
``shall have the sole Power of Impeachment'' and that all civil
officers of the United States ``shall be removed from Office on
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors''. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code,
provides that ``[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned''.
During his service on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts's
spouse, Jane Sullivan Roberts, worked as a legal recruiter, placing
candidates in law firms for a fee. In many instances, the legal
recruiter's fee is paid by the law firm and may exceed $100,000 per
placement. Between 2007 and 2014, Jane Sullivan Roberts reportedly
earned over $10 million in commissions through her recruitment work.
Many of the firms that paid Jane Sullivan Roberts had matters before
the Supreme Court.
Such an arrangement, in which law firms with matters before the
Court pay the Chief Justice's household expenses, reasonably raises
questions about the Chief Justice's relationship with specific
attorneys and the prospect of bias. The Chief Justice's failure to
recuse--and to disclose Jane Sullivan Roberts's assets related to her
recruitment practice in his required financial disclosures--violates
judicial standards and the law, and compromises the institutional
integrity of the high court, in violation of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455 and
the Chief Justice's oath.
In all of this, Chief Justice Roberts has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice,
to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Chief Justice Roberts, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial and removal from office, and disqualification to
hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United
States.
<all>I am in awe!
I have never been prouder of a fellow Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law graduate.
When Rep. Cohen and I graduated from CCH (in 1974 and 1986, respectively), it was called "Memphis State University."
It's now called the "University of Memphis."
For a mere $19.95, the State of Tennessee once offered to issue Memphis State graduates a backdated diploma.
I did not request one. I went to "Memphis State," thank you.
The same working class urban law school from which "Rudy Baylor" and some of John Grisham's other fictional characters graduated.
Rep. Cohen, turns 77 on May 24, 2026.
Rep. Cohen has devoted his career to helping people.
After 20 years, disgruntled Tennessee corporate oligarchs responded with the politics of division, which is what Tennessee corporate oligarchs consider cute.
Tennessee corporate oligarchs recently split Memphis among three (3) newly-drawn Congressional districts.
Wonder why?
U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen repeatedly won re-election as the Memphis Congressman since 2006, for 20 years.
Memphis was once run by segregationist toadies who violated the Voting Right Act. Memphis is now a majority Black city represented by a white man, the only remaining Democratic Congressman from Tennessee.
Rebarbative Tennessee corporate oligarchs were unhappy with U.S. Steve Cohen, the only Tennessee Democrat in Congress.
In Memphis, corporate oligarchs They could no longer sell their nasty 'ole nostrums in the marketplace of ideas.
So they have gerrymandered Memphis into three (3) different Congressional districts.
Remember the words of François VI, duc de La Rochefoucauld, "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
Rep. Cohen's press release states in haec verbs:
Congressman Cohen Introduces Six Articles of Impeachment Against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, today introduced six Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for committing high crimes and misdemeanors by violating the Constitution, disregarding his statutory obligations as Chief Justice, and breaching his oaths of office. Chief Justice Roberts has led the Court to the breaking point, with perceived political bias, arbitrary and unexplained rulings, and continually ruling for the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and the broader citizenry.
Congressman Cohen made the following statement:
“The Supreme Court was once a proud and credible institution. Even if one disagreed with a position, there was respect for the analysis, thoroughness, and process. Under Chief Justice Roberts stewardship, it is now 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. As Chief Justice, John Roberts is charged with administering this institution impartially, independently, and with integrity – all requirements built into constitutional structure of our judiciary. 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 six articles are summarized below:
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.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment