The Beverly Hills Bar Association has a long history of public advocacy in support of the principle of judicial independence when judges are subjected to attacks and attempted intimidation because of their rulings. It is fundamental to our constitutional democracy that citizens respect the indispensable role of judges in interpreting the Constitution and laws and making dispassionate rulings on how to apply them in each case.  Given that rulings by lower court judges may be incorrect, they are subject to appeal to a higher court. But they should not be met with actions or words of contempt by a losing party, or with threats of political or other retaliation by those who seek a different outcome. We are deeply concerned that actions and statements surrounding the current and ongoing federal court case over summary deportation of Venezuelan migrants present a stark and dangerous challenge to the principle of judicial independence and to its companion principle, the rule of law.   

On Saturday, March 15, President Trump invoked wartime powers under a 1798 law to order summary deportations without a hearing of Venezuelan migrants who were alleged to be gang members who had “invaded” the U.S. within the administration’s unprecedented interpretation of the law. As migrants were being loaded onto three government planes to be flown to El Salvador, attorneys for some of the migrants who disputed the accusations and had committed no crime in the U.S. sought an emergency temporary restraining order and a hearing. The following events then occurred: 

• On March 15, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary order blocking the three deportation flights, and verbally ordered that the flights turn around if they were in the air; but the flights continued on and landed in El Salvador, where the migrants were imprisoned.    
• On March 17, 18, and 19, the judge ordered the Department of Justice to answer factual questions designed to determine if his March 15 orders had been willfully violated; but each time the Department refused to fully answer, whereupon the judge gave the Department another day to comply.  
• On March 17, Tom Homan, the president’s designated “border czar”, publicly stated, “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think.”   
• On March 18, President Trump published the following statement: “This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President…This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”   
• On March 18, articles of impeachment against Judge Boasberg were introduced in the House of Representatives.   
• On March 18, Chief Justice John Roberts took the rare step of responding with an official public statement on behalf of the Court: “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 was the first published statement on this subject by the Chief Justice since 2018, when under similar circumstances he felt compelled to remind President Trump and the public that “we don’t have Obama judges and Trump judges.”    

We believe it is the duty of the organized bar and its members to help educate the public on these simple principles articulated by the Chief Justice, and on how they require everyone to show respect for the judicial process while it plays out, no matter how passionately they may disagree with a ruling. A well-educated public is one of our best defenses against being swept into a constitutional crisis that endangers our democracy.  This should not be a partisan issue.  We take no position on the merits of this particular case.  But we are firmly committed to defending the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary under our constitution when they are under serious threat, as they so clearly are at this time.