The inability to remove federal judges for issuing rulings that undermine the Constitution is a glaring oversight in the American legal system. The Constitution provides a process for the impeachment and removal of judges under Article II, Section 4, stating that all civil officers, including federal judges, may be removed upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours. Article I, Sections 2 and 3 establish that the House holds the power to impeach, while the Senate conducts a trial and convicts by a two-thirds majority. This framework was designed to maintain judicial accountability, yet it has been interpreted in a way that shields judges from consequences when they issue rulings that prioritise illegal aliens over lawful citizens. The judiciary was never intended to be beyond scrutiny, and failing to remove judges who disregard constitutional principles is a failure of the system itself. Historically, the impeachment of federal judges has been limited to criminal acts such as perjury, bribery, and tax evasion. Judge Walter Nixon was removed in 1989 for perjury before a grand jury, and Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed for perjury and conspiracy to solicit a bribe. While these cases demonstrate that impeachment can be used to address judicial misconduct, the process has not been applied to judges who issue rulings that contradict constitutional protections for legal citizens. The refusal to hold judges accountable for ideological decisions that undermine national sovereignty is an unacceptable flaw in the current system. Federal statutes such as 28 U.S. Code § 176 allow for the removal of judges in the United States Court of Federal Claims for incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty, practising law while serving as a judge, or physical or mental incapacity. This provision should be expanded to include federal judges who demonstrate a pattern of rulings that favour illegal aliens over the rights of American citizens. The existing legal framework can be used to remove activist judges, but it requires political will. Congress has the authority to impeach judges who fail to uphold their constitutional duty, and there is no legal barrier preventing the House from drafting articles of impeachment against judges who demonstrate a repeated disregard for federal law. The argument that impeachment only applies to overt criminal acts is a distortion of constitutional intent. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanours” was deliberately broad, allowing Congress to remove those who abuse their office. Congress could initiate impeachment proceedings against judges who issue rulings that obstruct immigration enforcement, undermine legal voting processes, or grant rights to illegal aliens that exceed those afforded to American citizens. A refusal to act enables judicial activism to continue unchecked. The only solution within the current framework is for Congress to assert its authority and hold judges accountable through impeachment. The Constitution does not prevent this, only political cowardice does. If impeachment is not pursued, then legislation should be passed to expand the grounds for judicial removal beyond criminal acts to include rulings that systematically violate the Constitution. A judiciary that prioritises illegal aliens over the rights of American citizens is not upholding the law, it is subverting it. Judges who engage in such activism must be removed, either through the mechanisms that already exist or by legislative reforms that restore accountability to the judiciary.