Bill · H.Res. 157· House(119-HRES-157)
Impeaching John Deacon Bates, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
- Introduced
- 2/24/2025
- Last activity
- 2/24/2025 — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Sponsored by
- Andrew Ogles
- Cosponsors
- - 1 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution impeaches John Deacon Bates, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for high crimes and misdemeanors. It was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. Ogles on February 24, 2025, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The text states that Judge Bates engaged in conduct incompatible with his trust as a Federal judge. Specifically, the resolution targets an order he issued regarding certain government webpages. It claims he is unfit to hold office and should be removed.
Yes
Would children be better off under this?+5
The text characterizes gender affirming care as harmful to the bodies of healthy young men and women.
The opposite· 3 of 4
Would LGBTQ people be better off under this?-8
The resolution targets the judicial support for restoring LGBTQI+ informational resources on government websites.
Does this expand the rights of LGBTQ people?-7
The resolution seeks to remove a judge who ordered the restoration of LGBTQI+ content on government webpages.
Does this make health care easier to get in general?-5
The resolution's goal of removing the judge would facilitate the removal of medical resource webpages regarding gender affirming care.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Promoting Traditional Oversight: Although the text does not explicitly label outcomes as positive benefits for specific groups, the resolution argues that removing a judge who ordered agencies to restore specific content is necessary because the Congress views the affected content as promoting a grave moral evil, specifically pointing to the protection of healthy young men and women from purposeful body damage (Article I).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Potential Burdens: The provided text does not explicitly identify or list specific provisions that create negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States, aside from accusing the judge of high crimes and misdemeanors and seeking his removal from office (Article I).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Improves L G B T Q Rights-7
- Healthcare
- Improves Healthcare Access-5
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Children+5Good For L G B T Q Community-8
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency-3
- 3/24/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/24/2025
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Marjorie GreeneRepublican · Georgia