Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee is done playing nice with activist judges who think they run immigration policy. On Monday, Ogles introduced articles of impeachment against U.S. District Judge Allison Dale Burroughs after she blocked the Trump administration’s decision to end Temporary Protected Status for Somalia, a move that would have allowed the removal of foreign nationals who have no lawful right to remain in this country, according to Ogles’ announcement.
Ogles did not mince words when announcing the effort on X, declaring that “America is not Africa’s dumping ground” and promising to “put the sovereignty of the American people FIRST.” It’s a sentiment that resonates with millions of Americans who are tired of watching unelected judges substitute their own policy preferences for the law as written by Congress and enforced by the executive branch, as Ogles stated in the same post.
The impeachment resolution makes two serious allegations against Judge Burroughs. First, that she unlawfully blocked the administration’s decision to terminate Somalia’s TPS designation despite the Immigration and Nationality Act explicitly barring courts from reviewing the Homeland Security secretary’s decisions to designate, extend, or terminate TPS for a foreign country, per the resolution. Second, that she attempted to sidestep the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mullin v. Doe by allowing claims of racial and national-origin discrimination against the administration to proceed, even though the administration has not renewed any TPS designations, which undermines the entire premise of those claims, according to the resolution text.
This is not about Somalia specifically, though the case there is clear enough. TPS was designed as temporary protection for nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters, not as a permanent backdoor immigration program. Somalia has been designated for TPS since 1991, more than three decades ago. At what point does “temporary” become permanent in the eyes of these judges? And at what point do we acknowledge that the executive branch, not the judiciary, has the constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy and immigration enforcement?
The response to Ogles’ announcement has been overwhelmingly positive from Americans who are fed up with judicial overreach. For too long, district judges in single jurisdictions have issued nationwide injunctions that effectively nullify presidential policies they happen to disagree with. The Trump administration has faced an unprecedented wave of such injunctions, and while the Supreme Court has often eventually sided with the administration, the damage is done in the months or years it takes to get there, as Ogles noted.
Ogles’ impeachment effort sends a message that there are consequences for judges who abuse their authority. Impeachment is a serious step, but so is ignoring federal law and Supreme Court precedent to impose one’s own immigration policy on the entire nation. The question now is whether congressional Republicans will stand with Ogles or once again retreat in the face of judicial activism.
Providence watches over the bold.
About The Author
