Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is suggesting that impeachment proceedings may be warranted against U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani after she blocked enforcement of a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would cut off federal Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood in 22 states.

The ruling from Talwani, an Obama appointee, issued late Tuesday, temporarily halts implementation of the measure, which lawmakers said was intended to prevent taxpayer money from indirectly supporting abortion providers. In her decision, Talwani wrote that Congress may have exceeded its constitutional authority in the way the provision was crafted and applied.

The ruling immediately drew strong criticism from several Republican lawmakers, who argued that the judiciary had overstepped its role and interfered in an area they said falls squarely within the legislative branch’s authority, Newsmax reported.

Lee, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Salt Lake City with experience arguing cases before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, took to X to criticize Talwani’s ruling and propose a possible congressional solution.

“It would take an act of Congress to defund Planned Parenthood,” the senator wrote Tuesday night. “So Congress did precisely that. To suggest Congress somehow lacks the authority to do that is insane — and potentially impeachable.”

Legal scholars note that while impeachment of a federal judge is uncommon, Congress does have the power to remove judges for misconduct or abuse of office. The bar for doing so is high, however, and any effort would depend heavily on political support.

Backers of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act say the legislation was intentionally structured to prevent what they describe as “bureaucratic gamesmanship” that has helped Planned Parenthood avoid funding restrictions imposed by conservative lawmakers.

Republican sponsors said bundling multiple appropriations instructions into a single, wide-ranging measure was meant to strengthen the law’s durability and help it withstand judicial scrutiny. Planned Parenthood praised the judge’s decision, saying in a statement obtained by Politico that the “district court again recognized the ‘defund’ law for what it is: unconstitutional and dangerous.”

Meanwhile, the head of a legal watchdog organization who clerked for one of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointments has accused Chief Justice John Roberts of malfeasance in allowing lower courts to commit “judicial sabotage” against Trump’s second-term agenda.

In an interview with actor and comedian Joe Piscopo for the latter’s podcast, Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, referenced a recently filed lawsuit against Roberts targeting him in his role as head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, as well as Robert J. Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The complaint alleges that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have engaged in regulatory actions that exceed their constitutional mandate, arguing such actions fall outside the judiciary’s core responsibilities of adjudicating cases and providing administrative support.

The lawsuit also contends that records maintained by the U.S. Judicial Conference, under Roberts’ leadership, should be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests as a consequence of the alleged regulatory actions.

In his interview with Piscopo, Davis accused Roberts of refusing to do more to rein in lower federal courts that have imposed a record number of nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration despite several instances where he said the president’s Article II authorities were being trampled.

“I actually like the Chief Justice. I clerked for Justice [Neil] Gorsuch, and I like him personally, John Roberts, but I would say this to the Chief Justice: you have failed to do your job as the Chief Justice of the United States when you have allowed these radical activist judges to sabotage the president’s Article II powers,” Davis said.

“This is an assault on American voters. This is a repudiation of American voters by lifetime appointment, paycheck-protected federal judges who have no—who have no reason to be in this political lane. This is not judicial review. This is judicial sabotage,” he added.