[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1309 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






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>