President Donald Trump has been taking active steps to fulfill a whole host of campaign promises and, not surprisingly, he is facing strong resistance from liberal members of the federal judiciary.

Amid his recent push to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, Trump was targeted not just by a U.S. District Court judge assigned to handle a legal challenge of those actions but also by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, as Just the News reports, whose seeming hostility toward the president has long been the subject of speculation.

Roberts wades in

Prompted by a series of cases in which federal district court judges took it upon themselves to block key Trump administration initiatives, Trump, Republican lawmakers, and numerous conservative commentators began calling for impeachments.

When Judge James Boasberg moved to block the administration's deportation of the aforementioned Venezuelan migrants by invoking the Alien Enemies Act, Trump took to his Truth Social platform and declared, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” as NBC News noted.

In a rare and unusual development, Roberts issued a statement of his own, seemingly rebuking Trump's position, saying, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

Roberts added, “The normal appellate review process exist for that purpose,” seeming to suggest that the executive branch lacks the authority to act in this matter unless and until Boasberg's ruling is examined by a higher court.

The chief justice's admonition, however, has not quelled concerns raised not just by the administration but also by Republican lawmakers who are ready and willing to pursue potential remedies against the lower court judge they believe has engaged in impermissible overreach.

Presidential authority asserted, defended

In the wake of Boasberg's actions and Roberts' rebuke, Trump doubled down on his assertion of authority when it comes to the deportation of violent criminals, taking to Truth Social again on Wednesday to say, “If a President doesn't have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume to role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!”

Expressing his full support of Trump's position was Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX), who on Wednesday, introduced articles of impeachment against Boasberg, declaring him “guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors” worthy of his removal from office.

Gill elaborated on his position on Thursday, asking on X, “What's the point of having elections when lone district court judges can dictate the policy and operations of the Executive branch? “

He continued, “These judges much be stopped, or we don't have a Republic anymore.”

Also, speaking out on the topic was Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, who inquired on social media, “Under what theory of the constitution does a single Marxist judge in San Francisco have the same executive power as the Commander-in-Chief elected by the whole nation to lead the executive branch? No such theory exists. It is merely naked judicial tyranny.”

Impeachment calls persist

Despite Roberts' words of caution, which Ben Weingarten of The Federalist describes as a “corrosive” and dangerous “invitation for lower court judges to act and rule ever more brazenly,” Trump and those who support him do not show any signs of backing down.

Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, has remained steadfast in articulating the principles he believes are at stake, stating, “An activist judge ordering plans to turn around during a national security operation is not a 'judicial decision...'” but rather “a highly illegal and extremely dangerous sabotage of the presidency, which is an impeachable offense,” but whether Boasberg is ultimately held to account, only time will tell.