Administration

Trump goes after Jeffries after Supreme Court voting rights comments: ‘Isn’t he subject to Impeachment?’

Comments:

by Tara Suter - 05/03/26 8:25 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Tara Suter - 05/03/26 8:25 PM ET

Comments:

Link copied

NOW PLAYING

President Trump went after House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) over a comment he made following a recent Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act.

“Hakeem Jeffries, a Low IQ individual, said our Supreme Court is ‘illegitimate.’ After saying such a thing, isn’t he subject to Impeachment? I got impeached for A PERFECT PHONE CALL. Where are you Republicans? Why not get it started? They’ll be doing this to me!” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

Jeffries shot back at the president in a Sunday post on the social platform X, simply stating, “Jeffries Derangement Syndrome,” an apparent reference to “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a descriptor the president has applied to people who disagree with him.

While Trump is most likely pushing for Jeffries’s removal with the post, according to an annotated version of the Constitution on Congress’s official website analyzing multiple documents, members of Congress are likely not subject to impeachment, unlike the president.

Last week, Jeffries called a recent Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act “unacceptable” in a press conference, while also calling the high court’s conservative majority “illegitimate.”

“Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act and is designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all across this country to elect their candidate of choice,” Jeffries said.

“But we’re not here to step back, we’re here to fight back. Now, when this decision came out earlier today — it’s an unacceptable decision, but not an unexpected decision,” he added.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s addition of a second majority-Black congressional district an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The decision, 6-3, weakened a central provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has historically enabled advocacy groups to force additional majority-minority districts. Wednesday’s decision does not get rid of the provision as a whole, with Justice Samuel Alito portraying it as an “update” to the framework that has governed Voting Rights Act cases for decades.

The Hill has reached out to Jeffries’s office for comment.

Add as preferred source on Google