Over the weekend, an Obama-appointed judge issued a temporary injunction blocking the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing sensitive Treasury Department data. While the media frames this as a limited restriction on political appointees and special government employees, the reality appears far more sweeping.
Judge Paul Engelmayer’s ruling explicitly bars all political appointees—including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—from Treasury payment records and financial systems, restricting access to career civil servants (essentially the Deep State) within the Bureau of Fiscal Services. This unprecedented move effectively prevents the Treasury secretary from overseeing his own department’s financial data, raising serious concerns about executive authority and the administration’s ability to govern.
The Trump administration’s lawyers argued Sunday that the injunction violates the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch. They contend that a judge interfering with the president’s ability to manage his own staff and initiatives is a clear case of judicial overreach.
As Trump put it, “No judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision.” His statement underscores a fundamental concern about the separation of powers and the judiciary’s role in governance.
In addition to the Trump administration fighting back against this lawfare, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) is taking things a step further and is drafting articles of impeachment against the judge.
“I’m drafting articles of impeachment for US District Judge Paul Engelmayer,” Crane said in a post on X. “Partisan judges abusing their positions is a threat to democracy.”
“This is obviously judicial overreach,” Crane continued. “Judge Engelmayer is attempting to stop White House employees from accessing the very systems they oversee. Where in the constitution does it say a President and his team cannot root out obvious waste, fraud and abuse?”
This is obviously judicial overreach.
— Rep. Eli Crane (@RepEliCrane) February 11, 2025
Judge Engelmayer is attempting to stop White House employees from accessing the very systems they oversee.
Where in the constitution does it say a President and his team cannot root out obvious waste, fraud and abuse?
Engelmayer’s ruling wasn’t just absurd—it was a blatant power grab. This lawsuit, spearheaded by 19 leftist state attorneys general and led by the notoriously anti-Trump New York Attorney General Letitia James, claims that allowing DOGE members access to Treasury data somehow violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. It’s a nonsensical argument, but that was never the point.
All these leftist attorneys general had to do was shop their lawless case to a sympathetic anti-Trump judge willing to rubber-stamp their efforts to obstruct the administration—and that’s exactly what they got. When judges decide to abandon the Constitution and make blatantly partisan rulings with no legal or constitutional basis, we have a problem that desperately needs fixing, and impeachment is a tool that can be used.
The impeachment of a federal judge is similar to that of impeaching a president, requiring action by both the House and Senate. It begins with an investigation, often led by the House Judiciary Committee, into allegations of misconduct such as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. If the House votes by a simple majority to impeach, the case moves to the Senate for a trial. Conviction and removal from office require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate—which means that while the Republican-controlled House may impeach him, a Senate conviction would be unlikely. While 15 federal judges have been impeached in U.S. history, only eight have been removed, making it a rare but powerful tool to hold the judiciary accountable.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member