Sec.

That John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors in violation of his constitutional oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. Article I: Failure of Stewardship: Politization of the Court

The Chief Justice administers the Court and is a steward of judicial independence. Chief Justice Roberts has failed to uphold the principles of impartiality and independence by allowing the Court to become a political instrument, selectively invoking the Purcell principle and repeatedly inserting the Court into the electoral process in a manner that has consistently favored one political party.

Most recently, in Louisiana v. Callais, the Court released its decision in the middle of primary elections already underway, prompting states across the country to rush mid-decade redistricting. In Louisiana itself, more than 100,000 voters had already cast ballots when the Court ruled the existing districts unlawful.

This is the context of a national cascade of mid-decade partisan redistricting, instigated by President Donald Trump and his pressure on Republican-led state legislatures. The Court is well aware of these circumstances, with multiple cases reaching its emergency docket. In the eight days following Callais, Tennessee dismantled its only majority-Black congressional district, splitting Memphis into three pieces. Alabama and South Carolina indicated they would follow suit. The Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved Democratic redistricting amendment, a case the Court declined to stay, within days. In contrast, it bypassed its own 32-day waiting period under Supreme Court Rule 45.3 to finalize the decision on an emergency basis, enabling Louisiana to redraw its map in time for the 2026 elections. Similarly, on an expedited basis, the Supreme Court vacated lower court injunctions preventing Alabama from redistricting and allowed a new map to take effect eight days before the primary election. The asymmetrical application of the Purcell principle in a way that benefits Republicans demonstrates the Chief Justice’s inability to administer the court impartially.

In a moment of hyper-partisanship and visible, persistent presidential pressure on the Court, the Callais decision and its timing would undoubtedly be perceived as political. This pattern of unpredictable intervention in the electoral process—applying the Purcell principle when it favors one party and abandoning it when it does not—demonstrates the Chief Justice's inability to administer the Court independently and impartially, in violation of his constitutional and statutory obligations and the Judicial Oath.

Sec. Article II: Violation of Oaths: Entrenchment of Minority Rule

The Constitution establishes a federal and state government designed to protect the rights and liberties of the people of the United States and to remain accountable to them through elections. It guarantees a republican form of government in the states, the freedoms of expression, assembly, and petition, and due process of law. The Framers of the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments expanded these protections by guaranteeing equal protection under the law and extending the franchise to all citizens age 18 and older. These provisions are substantive protections designed to ensure that government remains representative of, responsive to, and accountable to the people.

Chief Justice Roberts has violated the core structure of the Constitution by giving state legislatures license to draw districts and jurisdictional lines in ways that ensure only favored viewpoints can prevail, discriminating against minority viewpoints and communities and breaking the core constitutional commitment to popular sovereignty.

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the Chief Justice authored a decision abandoning the Court’s responsibility to protect against government authority being used to favor specific viewpoints, declaring it a political question beyond judicial reach. In Louisiana v. Callais, he joined a decision dismantling the Voting Rights Act's protections for majority-minority districts, empowering state legislatures to privilege political viewpoint over other factors when drawing districts and jurisdictions. Together, these decisions undermined the political rights of citizens and empowered those currently in elected office to use government authority to entrench themselves and those with preferred political perspectives, despite the will of the electorate. Taken to its logical end, such a system allows a minority to maintain control of the state and federal government even after popular opinion shifts against it.

In so doing, Chief Justice Roberts gravely violated his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties of the Chief Justice, and to administer justice without respect to persons.

Sec. Article III: Violation of Oath: Empowering the Rich over the Poor

In the Judicial Oath, Chief Justice Roberts swore to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” However, his conduct has demonstrated a bias toward wealth. The Roberts Court systematically dismantled campaign finance laws designed to protect the integrity of our electoral process in Citizens United v. FEC, McCutcheon v. FEC, and AFPF v. Bonta. In joining Citizens United and authoring the Court’s opinions in McCutcheon and Bonta, Chief Justice Roberts entrenched a system that favored and consolidated power in the wealthy. These decisions undermine the core premise of our Constitution, that every citizen can equally participate in governance. By privileging candidates who can raise large sums of money and the rich people and corporations that provide those resources, Chief Justice Roberts undermined the structure of the United States Constitution and the political rights of the people of the United States.

Sec. Article IV: Violation of Oath: Unaccountable Executive Branch

In taking the Judicial Oath, Chief Justice Roberts swore to “administer justice without respect to persons.” However, in Trump v. United States, the Chief Justice ruled that a former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. This ruling privileges a select few from the generally applicable criminal law, placing former Presidents out of the reach of legislative and judicial authority. This ruling effectively means a President is exempt from criminal bribery charges. It undermines the core structure of the Constitution of checks and balances and the constitutional obligation of equal protection under the law. In such conduct, Chief Justice Roberts violated his oath by privileging those in power over the laws of the land.

Sec. Article V: Violation of Oath: Arbitrary Decisions

Under Chief Justice Roberts’s administration of the Supreme Court, the Court has greatly expanded its use of the emergency docket. These orders, styled as temporary interventions but in effect often providing a conclusive disposition of the matters, lack any meaningful analysis of the issues, explanation of the decision, or guidance for future application. The precedential value of these orders is unclear, and lower courts have struggled to apply them. Rulings without explanation, especially those determined on an incomplete record, are inherently arbitrary. These orders violate the parties’ due process and equal protection rights. As the leader and administrator of the Court, Chief Justice Roberts has an obligation to ensure that the Supreme Court operates in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Sec. Article VI: Violation of Oath and Laws of the United States: Failure to Recuse

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that all civil officers of the United States “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Section 455 of title 28, United States Code, provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.

During his service on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts’s spouse, Jane Sullivan Roberts, worked as a legal recruiter, placing candidates in law firms for a fee. In many instances, the legal recruiter’s fee is paid by the law firm and may exceed $100,000 per placement. Between 2007 and 2014, Jane Sullivan Roberts reportedly earned over $10 million in commissions through her recruitment work. Many of the firms that paid Jane Sullivan Roberts had matters before the Supreme Court.

Such an arrangement, in which law firms with matters before the Court pay the Chief Justice’s household expenses, reasonably raises questions about the Chief Justice’s relationship with specific attorneys and the prospect of bias. The Chief Justice's failure to recuse—and to disclose Jane Sullivan Roberts’s assets related to her recruitment practice in his required financial disclosures—violates judicial standards and the law, and compromises the institutional integrity of the high court, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Chief Justice's oath.

In all of this, Chief Justice Roberts has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Chief Justice Roberts, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.