Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution formally accuses a federal judge of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and, if adopted by the House, impeaches her and sends the article of impeachment to the Senate. The House is acting as the body that brings charges, and the Senate will hold a trial to decide whether to convict and remove the judge from office. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote; only the Senate can remove the judge. The resolution itself does not by itself remove the judge or create a law.
The House may adopt impeachment articles by a simple majority vote; after adoption the articles are transmitted to the Senate for trial, where conviction and removal require a two-thirds vote. This is a constitutional impeachment process, not regular legislation.
This House resolution formally impeaches U.S. District Judge Allison D.
Burroughs, alleging she committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" by issuing a stay that prevented the Executive Branch from ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalia.
The resolution contends the judge violated 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(5)(A) and improperly usurped presidential authority, and it directs the House to present this article of impeachment to the Senate.
Requires both House impeachment and a rare two-thirds Senate conviction; targeting a judicial decision raises institutional and evidentiary barriers.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise article of impeachment that clearly states the alleged misconduct and cites relevant statute and case law, but it contains minimal procedural, evidentiary, or accountability detail beyond the formal impeachment allegation.
Whether the judge performed lawful judicial review or committed impeachable usurpation
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether the judge performed lawful judicial review or committed impeachable usurpation
Likely views the resolution as a partisan attempt to punish judicial review and to intimidate judges who protect immigrant rights.
Sees the stay as part of normal judicial oversight of executive action and will demand a factual record showing intentional misconduct, not mere legal disagreement.
Will weigh statutory language, precedent, and whether this is legal error or impeachable misconduct.
Concerned about precedent of removing judges for controversial rulings, but open to impeachment if clear evidence of intentional usurpation exists.
Likely supports the resolution as appropriate accountability for a judge who blocked the President's lawful determination and violated statutory non-review language.
Views impeachment as necessary to check judicial overreach and restore executive authority on immigration policy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Requires both House impeachment and a rare two-thirds Senate conviction; targeting a judicial decision raises institutional and evidentiary barriers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether the judge performed lawful judicial review or committed impeachable usurpation
Requires both House impeachment and a rare two-thirds Senate conviction; targeting a judicial decision raises institutional and evidentiary…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a concise article of impeachment that clearly states the alleged misconduct and cites relevant statute and case law, but it contains minimal procedural,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.