Protecting the Judiciary –  Article of Impeachment:  “It’s Déjà vu All Over Again”[1]

Rep. Andy Ogles announced that he has introduced an article of impeachment against Senior Judge John D. Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  See Suzanne Monyak,  “Republican Moves to Impeach Judge Who Ruled Against Trump Order” (Bloomberg Law Feb. 24, 2025).

SUMMARY

In my opinion, the impeachment effort omits important facts that are set out in Judge Bates’ published decision.

The impeachment allegation is that Judge Bates, when ordering restoration of website information by federal agencies, failed to consider that they contain repugnant “information endorsing the castration of children….”  ICYMI: Rep. Ogles Files Articles of Impeachment Against Radical Activist Judge | Representative Ogles.

Judge Bates was called upon to interpret two federal statutes.  While the impeachment allegation addresses what purportedly was not considered, what did the Judge consider?

Based on the evidence filed in court, Judge Bates wrote: “Dr. Liou cannot effectively do her job to address a ‘time-sensitive’ Chlamydia outbreak that is happening now.” [Emphasis in original]. Six leading physicians groups, representing 600,000 physicians submitted evidence that the removed information is vital for real-time clinical decision-making in hospitals, clinics and emergency departments across the country.

Based on the evidence before him, His Honor determined that the removal of information from public websites was contrary to the federal statutes and was interfering with the delivery of important medical care to low-income families.

IF A JUDGE ERRS, THE REMEDY IS APPEAL, NOT IMPEACHMENT

In prior blogs about other impeachment efforts, I wrote:

Maybe the Judges’ rulings are right.  Maybe not.  But, let’s assume they’re not correct.  There is a remedy for incorrect judicial decisions.  It’s called an appeal.  Not impeachment.

See Protecting the Judiciary From Another Dangerous, Fact-Free Impeachment Demand – E-Discovery LLC and Protecting the Judiciary and the Rule of Law – Frivolous Articles to Impeach Federal Judge Filed – E-Discovery LLC.

Another recent blog agrees: “The problem [with impeaching these Judges] is that [the Judges] are not ‘violating the law’ but simply holding an opposing viewpoint on the law’s meaning. This is why we have appellate courts.”  Jonathan Turley, No, the GOP Should Not Impeach Federal Judges Over the Trump Challenges (Feb. 25, 2025)(Emphasis added).

So, let’s start with the facts.

THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST JUDGE BATES

Rep. Ogles wrote: “We must protect our children from predators like Judge Bates….”  See ICYMI: Rep. Ogles Files Articles of Impeachment Against Radical Activist Judge | Representative Ogles (Emphasis added; see post on X @2:07 pm, 2/24/2025).  Rep. Ogles’ X post states:

His attempt to block President Trump’s order to remove webpages containing resources for “gender-affirming care” from government sites is appalling.

At no point in American history has the judiciary considered the surgical or chemical castration of healthy children to be a compelling or even legitimate health concern and it shouldn’t start now.

In her article, Ms. Monyak summarized the background:

In a resolution posted on X on Monday, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) claimed Senior Judge John Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia engaged in misconduct and promoted a “grave moral evil” by ordering health agencies to restore certain webpages with health information and datasets.

The webpages were taken down under Donald Trump’s executive order to remove any agency statements that “promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology.”

Ogles said in the impeachment resolution that Bates “failed to consider” that these webpages contained information about gender-affirming care, and “at no time in the history of the American judicial system, until very recently, would judges have considered the purposeful damage to the bodies of healthy young men and women to be a compelling or even legitimate health concern.”

A report in The Hill stated that: “The article of impeachment says U.S. District Judge John Bates’s conduct in the case was ‘so utterly lacking in intellectual honesty and basic integrity that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.’”  Zach Schonfeld, Republican files article of impeachment against judge who ordered agencies to restore scrubbed data (Feb. 24, 2025).

Rep. Ogles’ article of impeachment charges:

Judge Bates failed to consider that these [removed] webpages maintained informational resources on gender affirming care – better described as the intentional surgical or chemical castration of children – and that at no time in the history of the American judicial system, until very recently, would judges have considered the purposeful damage to the bodies of healthy young men and women to be a compelling or even legitimate health concern.

What did Judge Bates consider and decide?

JUDGE BATES’ PUBLISHED DECISION

Judge Bates’ 37-page published opinion is available for all to read.  Drs. for Am. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. CV 25-322 (JDB), 2025 WL 452707 (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2025).

Doctors for America (“DFA”) sued and moved “to temporarily restrain three agencies of the United States government from further removing or modifying health-related webpages and datasets—and to compel them to restore webpages and datasets that they have already removed or modified—because DFA and its members (physicians, medical trainees, and other health care professionals) use the webpages regularly in treating patients and conducting research.”

The claims were based on two federal statutes – the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”).  It is, of course, routine for federal judges to be called upon to apply federal statutes to federal agency actions.  That is what Judge Bates did.  In other words, His Honor did his job.[2]

I am not going to go into all of the facts in detail.  One allegation was that removal of the web information interfered with physicians’ activities.

Judge Bates wrote: “The record explains that the removed webpages contained information and datasets that ‘guide medical practice, are essential to groundbreaking public health research, and are key to preventing disease outbreaks.’”  [Emphasis added].

For example, Judge Bates described the following evidence that was before His Honor:

Dr. Liou works at a clinic “serving predominately low-income immigrant families in southwest Chicago” and “at one of the most underserved high schools in Chicago.” Liou Decl. ¶¶ 1, 3. In her clinical work, she “regularly rel[ies]” on information the CDC publishes. Id. ¶ 3. And for Dr. Liou, access to that information is both routine and time-sensitive. For instance, until the websites went dark, Dr. Liou would have consulted CDC resources to combat a recent Chlamydia outbreak in her high school and to step up still-ongoing “efforts around STI testing and prevention” to ensure the outbreak doesn’t recur. Id. ¶ 7. Because Dr. Liou “rel[ies] on [CDC] resources daily,” their disappearance has “caused a huge disruption in [her] work. [Emphasis added].

Judge Bates wrote that the harm Dr. Liou suffered “is neither hypothetical nor far off. The high school ‘recently had an outbreak of Chlamydia,’ and now that she is ‘without the crucial CDC resources,’ she is ‘not able to do her job to help address this urgent situation.’” [Quotation cleaned up].

The Judge concluded that: “Dr. Liou cannot effectively do her job to address a ‘time-sensitive’ Chlamydia outbreak that is happening now.” [Emphasis in original]. In connection with the request for immediate relief, Judge Bates wrote:

No amount of money or other legal relief could remedy the fact that Dr. Liou was unable to work effectively on containing and shortening that outbreak.

His Honor wrote that the Paperwork Reduction Act – a federal statute passed by Congress – requires timely and equitable public access to an agency’s public information and that agencies must provide adequate notice when terminating dissemination.  Judge Bates wrote that the APA – another federal law – provides for judicial review of final agency action.

Judge Bates was enforcing acts of Congress – the same body in which Rep. Ogles sits.

His Honor recited standard principles governing standing and the grant or denial of a motion for a temporary restraining order.  Describing the evidence, Judge Bates wrote:

Or to reach even further, take the statement from six leading physician groups, which together represent more than 600,000 physicians. See Statement from Leading Physician Groups on Removal of Data and Guidance from Federal Websites [ECF No. 8-3]. As these groups attest, the lost materials are more than “academic references—they are vital for real-time clinical decision-making in hospitals, clinics and emergency departments across the country.” Id. Without them, health care providers and researchers are left “without up-to-date recommendations on managing infectious diseases, public health threats, essential preventive care and chronic conditions.” Id. And so the groups call restoring the webpages “a public health imperative.” Id.

Finally, it bears emphasizing who ultimately bears the harm of defendants’ actions: everyday Americans, and most acutely, underprivileged Americans, seeking healthcare. These individuals rely on the care of doctors like Liou and Ramachandran. If those doctors cannot provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe, life-threatening conditions. The public thus has a strong interest in avoiding these serious injuries to the public health. [Emphasis added].

And, what did Judge Bates order?  His Honor ordered restoration of webpages and datasets, as well as a status report.

A final decision will be appealable; however, it is not impeachable.[3]

UPDATE 3/1/2025:

Judge Bates also issued a decision in Amer. Fed. of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Dept. of Labor, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 542825 (D. D. C. Feb. 14, 2025).

In that case, labor unions, a think tank, and two nonprofits moved for a TRO against several agencies to restrain them from providing DOGE personnel access to records systems containing personal information.

As it said previously, the Court has serious concerns about the privacy concerns raised by this case, and those concerns are all the graver now that the data includes information on all Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid, as well as countless consumers. However, on the record before it, the Court does not conclude that plaintiffs are entitled to the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order. [Emphasis added].

The decision was grounded in several statutes, including the federal Privacy Act of 1974, a “novel and complex” issue under the Economy Act. Of 1932, and the Administrative Procedure Act.  Judge Bates wrote: “In the end, plaintiffs fail to show that any of their claims are likely to succeed on the merits, at least on this record.  The Court thus denies their renewed motion for a TRO.”  His Honor entered a schedule for prompt resolution.  2025 WL 556325 (Feb. 19, 2025)(“ Although it will entertain plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery, the Court concludes that the prospect of discovery does not preclude defendants from taking their desired next step as well. Defendants may file a motion to dismiss, and if the Court determines the resolution of the motion doesn’t turn on factual issues implicated in any ongoing discovery, the Court may resolve the motion before plaintiffs file their preliminary-injunction motion.”).

UPDATE: See S. Monyak and J. Thomsen, Judiciary Tells Judges, Staff to Ignore Email to Explain Work (Feb. 23, 2025)(“The emails to judges and federal court employees could represent an improper intrusion into the judiciary by the executive branch, in breach of the Constitution’s mandated separation of powers.”).

____

[1] The quote is attributed to Yogi Berra.

[2] In federal courts, cases are assigned to judges.  Judges don’t pick them.

[3] Judge Bates’ decision was favorably cited in State v. Musk, No. 25-CV-429 (TSC), 2025 WL 520583, at *3 (D.D.C. Feb. 18, 2025).