Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Categories : Impeached federal judges Federal issues, by topic One-off pages, evergreen.
Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? As result, a magistrate judge is usually the first federal judicial officer a defendant sees following arrest or indictment.
Magistrate judges hear cases involving petty offenses committed on federal lands, but felony trials are heard only by district judges. In most districts, magistrate judges handle pretrial motions and hearings in civil cases.
While most civil cases are tried by district judges, magistrate judges also may preside over civil trials if all parties consent. Like other federal judges, all magistrate judges are paid the same salary, regardless of where they serve or their years of service. Senior judges are Article III judges who have met age and service requirements set by federal statute.
Judges are eligible but not required to take senior status if they are at least 65 years old and have served at least 15 years on the bench, or any combination of age and years of service that equals Regardless of age, judges must serve at least 10 years to qualify for senior status. Senior judges continue to draw their salary but may choose to handle a reduced caseload. They are required to handle at least one-fourth of the caseload, or other duties, of an active judge to qualify for future salary increases.
By taking senior status, even if maintaining a full caseload, a judge creates a vacancy on the court, to be filled by the nomination and confirmation process. Because there is no mandatory retirement age for Article III judges, there is no requirement that they take senior status. Many continue to carry heavy workloads, and senior judges handle about 20 percent of the total district and appellate caseload.
Visiting judges, like senior judges, can help a court stay on top of its caseload. Visiting judges have long provided significant assistance to courts they visit. Federal law provides that Article III judges may sit by designation and assignment in any other federal court having a need for their services. Circuit chief judges must authorize intracircuit assignments, which allow judges to sit with another court within their circuit, and the Chief Justice of the U.
Supreme Court must authorize intercircuit assignments, which allow a judge to sit in a circuit other than his or her home circuit. Federal courts have considerable autonomy. Each court has its own set of local rules. In addition, federal judges and lawyers who practice in federal court follow the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and Federal Rules of Evidence, which establish the general procedural requirements for litigating cases in federal courts.
But federal courts have considerable autonomy. Each appellate, district, and bankruptcy court has its own set of local rules, addressing procedural matters not uniformly governed by federal statute, Judicial Conference policy, or the Federal Rules of Procedure.
In some jurisdictions, individual judges also have a set of rules that govern cases in their courtrooms. Local rules and individual judges' rules are posted on court websites.
The Judiciary is a separate and independent branch of government. By statute, national Judiciary administrative policies are set by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which is made up of 26 judges, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. We have therefore come to the opinion that so far as receiving and holding an interest in the Credit Mobilier stock is concerned there is nothing in the testimony submitted to us which would warrant impeachment in the case of the Vice President.
The views of the minority of the committee were also printed in the Congressional Globe. Representative Clarkson Potter dissented from much of the committee's report, but was "constrained to consent to the recommendation that at this stage of the session they be discharged from the subject. He concluded that he did not "feel so clearly justified in holding, either upon principle, precedent, or authority, that Congress has the power to impeach a civil officer such as the Vice President for crime committed before induction into such office as to make [him] willing to recommend an impeachment for such an offense at a time when the impeachment cannot possibly be tried.
Goodrich dissented from the report and, in particular, from "the principle [the committee] asserts that an officer of the United States or a member of this House is not liable either to impeachment or expulsion for any offense whatever, committed prior to the commencement of his term, during which the question of his impeachment or expulsion is raised. The committee's report was made in the House on February 24, , briefly debated, and then postponed to February 26, In contrast, approximately years later, then-Vice President Spiro Agnew wrote a letter to the House seeking an impeachment investigation of allegations against him concerning his conduct while governor of Maryland.
The Speaker declined to take up the matter because it was pending before the courts. The House took no substantive action on seven related resolutions, seemingly because of concerns regarding the matter's pendency in the courts and regarding the fact that the conduct involved occurred before Agnew began his tenure as Vice President.
This review of some of the precedents on the question of what constitutes an impeachable offense suggests that the answer to this question is less than completely clear.
Serious criminal conduct appears to be a sufficient ground, whether the person involved is a judge or a member of the executive branch. Where the person to be impeached is the President or an executive officer, conduct having criminal intent, serious abuses of the power of the office involved, failure to carry out the duties of that office, and, possibly, interference with the Congress in an impeachment investigation of the President or other executive official may be enough to support an article of impeachment.
As to federal judges, the impeachment language might be read in light of the constitutional language providing that they serve during good behavior. With this in mind, a judge may be vulnerable to impeachment, not only for criminal conduct, but also for improper judicial conduct involving a serious dereliction of duty; or serious misconduct, including personal misconduct, placing the judge, the court or the judiciary in disrepute; or casting doubt upon his integrity and the integrity of the judiciary.
An impeachment article may also address misconduct occurring before the commencement of an individual's tenure in a federal office where there is a connection between that prior misconduct and conduct in the federal office.
False statements in connection with a nomination and confirmation to a federal office may also be the basis of an article of impeachment. However, historically views have differed as to whether an impeachment might be based solely upon conduct committed prior to the commencement of a federal officer's tenure in his current federal position.
It is unclear whether a federal officer would be subject to impeachment for conduct committed in a prior federal office, where both current and past offices were within the reach of the impeachment power. Nor is it clear whether an impeachment would lie against a federal officer currently holding a position covered by the constitutional impeachment authority, where the alleged misconduct at issue occurred while he held a position in the U.
Past precedent also suggests that, if state court proceedings are pending regarding alleged misconduct in a previously held state office, the House may decline to pursue an impeachment investigation of a person currently holding a federal office within the scope of the impeachment power based upon such allegations. The American impeachment process, a constitutionally based remedy, provides a legislative mechanism for investigating and trying allegations of some forms of serious misconduct on the part of the President, Vice President, and "civil Officers of the United States.
It has been found not to apply to Senators, and, although a parallel case does not exist as to Members of the House of Representatives, it seems likely that, on similar lines of reasoning, it would also be found inapplicable to them. The "civil Officer" language is not defined in the Constitution, and its outer limits are still somewhat unclear.
It has been used to reach Cabinet level officials. It may be argued that it should be regarded as reaching anyone whose appointment to an office of public trust must be in compliance with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Private citizens are not vulnerable to impeachment. The constitutional language which states that impeachment may lie for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors" also lacks definition in the document itself, although treason is defined elsewhere in the Constitution. Here, too, the precedents provide some guidance as to what has been viewed as an impeachable offense, as do the debates at the Constitutional Convention of , but the outside boundaries of the language have not been fully explored.
It seems clear that a criminal offense may give rise to an impeachment. Yet in some of the impeachments which have gone to trial and conviction, some of the articles have involved conduct which did not constitute a crime, but which did involve serious misconduct or gross improprieties while in office or abuse of the powers of the office.
Such serious misconduct may include personal conduct such as tax evasion or misconduct in connection with a personal bankruptcy. The impeachment process itself appears to be placed completely in the hands of the legislative branch, although the subject of an inquiry may occasionally be brought to the attention of the House through communications from one of the other two branches or from one of the state legislatures.
The House has the responsibility to make the initial investigation and to determine whether or not to impeach. If the Members of the House decide that impeachment is appropriate, they vote to impeach and vote articles of impeachment specifying the particular grounds upon which the impeachment is based. These are then presented to the Senate for trial. In the Senate trial, the House of Representatives is represented by Managers, who may be assisted by counsel.
The individual impeached also is entitled to assistance of counsel. After the Senate has considered the evidence presented, it then must determine whether or not to convict upon each of the articles separately. A conviction on any article must be supported by a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present. A conviction on any one of the articles constitutes a conviction in the impeachment trial; the individual need not be convicted on all of the articles brought against him.
If the Senate does vote to convict on an article, then it must determine what judgment is to flow from that decision. The Senate has two options: either to remove from office alone, or to remove from office and to prohibit the individual from holding other offices of public trust under the United States in the future. Recent precedents suggest that removal may flow automatically from conviction, but, if prohibition from holding further offices of public trust is to be applied, it must be voted upon specifically.
The two issues are divisible. With regard to the determination as to the appropriate judgment, a simple majority vote is sufficient to sustain it. A two-thirds majority is not required. The impeachment process is a complex and cumbersome mechanism.
It places in the hands of the two legislative bodies the determination as to the fitness to continue in office of some of the officers of the judicial and executive branches. As such it can act as a check upon abuses of power or instances of serious misconduct by those judicial and executive officers vulnerable to impeachment.
It also places significant demands upon legislative time and resources. It is possible that this represents an effort by the constitutional framers to balance the need to provide a means of remedying such misconduct against the need to minimize the chance that this legislative power to intrude into the business or personnel of the other co-equal branches could itself be over-used or abused.
Its constitutional framework is skeletal, providing minimal guidance as to the nature of the proceedings. This void is filled to a great extent by House and Senate rules, procedures, and precedents.
Yet, some questions remain, a few of which have been addressed in this report. Further, he is alleged to have made misleading statements in the recusal hearing that deprived the U. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of critical information for its review of a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to overrule Judge Porteous's denial of recusal, thereby depriving the parties and the public of the right to the honest services of his office.
In addition, he is alleged to have solicited and accepted things of value from those attorneys while the case was pending before him, and, without disclosing this, ruled in favor of those attorneys' client. By virtue of this corrupt relationship and his conduct as a federal judge, Judge Porteous is alleged to have brought his court into scandal and disrepute, prejudiced public respect for, and confidence in, the federal judiciary, and demonstrated that he is unfit for the office of federal judge.
For this conduct, Article I declares that Judge Porteous is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office. In addition, Article II alleges that Judge Porteous knew that the bail bondsman made false statements to the FBI in an effort to assist the judge in being appointed to the federal bench.
Article II declares that thereby Judge Porteous has engaged in conduct so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity that he is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, is unfit to hold the office of Federal judge, and should be removed from office. For this conduct, Article III declares that Judge Porteous is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office. These false statements were alleged to have been made in his supplemental SF, in his FBI background check, and in his "Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees.
By virtue of this, Article IV declares that Judge Porteous is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and should be removed from office. Article I was agreed to by a vote of Roll no. HH daily ed. March 11, Article II was agreed to by a vote of Roll no. H, HH daily ed. Article III was agreed to by a vote of Roll no. Article IV was agreed to by a vote of Roll No. H daily ed. September 17, The text of the resolution may be found at Cong.
The th Congress adjourned before the Porteous impeachment investigation could be completed. Unlike the Senate, the House of Representatives is not a continuing body. Therefore the investigative authority of the House Judiciary Committee under H. January 13, On January 22, , the House Judiciary Full Committee adopted a resolution to reestablish the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment first established September 17, , to investigate the allegations regarding Judge Porteous.
On September 30, , Representative Conyers introduced H. This resolution was referred to the House Rules Committee. No action was taken on it.
The full committee approved the resolution on January 27, , by a vote of I, sec. The Presiding Officer and all of the other Senators present when the Senate organized itself as a Court of Impeachment on March 17, , took the oath, "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of G.
Thomas Porteous Jr. March 17, S daily ed. April 12, In re: Impeachment of G. SS daily ed. April 15, April 21, The letter set out four corrections to the replication filed on April 15, , and requested that, in any future publications of the replication, these corrections would be incorporated.
The amended replication is printed at Cong. April 22, The webcasts of the organizational meeting of the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee and of the hearings held by this committee on the articles of impeachment against Judge G. This report, the post trial briefs of the parties, and links to the transcripts of the hearings held by the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee on the articles of impeachment against Judge G.
Before voting upon the articles of impeachment brought against Judge Porteous, the full Senate voted upon a motion by Judge Porteous to disaggregate the allegations in the articles, which could have led to independent votes on each allegation in individual articles rather than votes on each article of impeachment in their entirety.
The motion was rejected by a vote of 0 yeas and 94 nays Record Vote Number , Cong. S December 8, This is the second impeachment in the history of federal impeachments in which a vote to convict a person on an article of impeachment in a Senate trial was unanimous. In , seven articles of impeachment were brought against Judge West Humphreys. Three specifications under article VI were voted upon separately. The votes for conviction on articles I and V were unanimous, 39 to 0.
December 8, Record Vote Number In the intervening years between the impeachment trials of , , and and the impeachment proceedings in the current Congress, three U.
During the rd Congress in , three resolutions impeaching Robert F. Collins, U. Judge Collins had been convicted of bribery in and sentenced to 82 months in prison followed by two years of supervised release. Judge Collins resigned from office after exhaustion of his appeals from the criminal proceedings, and after the Judicial Conference of the United States, on June 23, , advised the House "that U.
District Judge Robert F. Collins of the Eastern District of Louisiana has engaged in conduct which might constitute grounds for impeachment, pursuant to [then] 28 U. June 24, , WL No further action was taken on the impeachment resolutions. In , H. Aguilar, U. District Judge for the Northern District of California. This measure was also referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Judge Aguilar was indicted in His first trial resulted in an acquittal on one count of obstruction of justice, but no verdict was reached on other charges. On appeal, the conviction on both counts was reversed.
He resigned from office after seven years of trials, retrials, and appeals. No further action was taken on H. During the th Congress in , H. Real, U. District Judge for the Central District of California. Subcommittee hearings were held on September 21, No further action was taken on the resolution.
Judge Kent pled guilty to obstruction of justice on February 23, Transcript of Plea Hearing, United States v. Kent, No. HCR U. District Court, S. February 23, , at , cited at H. In this report, we have used the citation form with respect to each document that the document itself employed. United States v. May 11, Judgment in a Criminal Case. See H. Following his conviction, the Judicial Council of the U.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recommended impeachment pursuant to 28 U. June 19, The articles allege that Judge Kent sexually assaulted two court employees and that he subsequently made false statements regarding the incidents to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to an investigatory committee of the U. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In a second resolution adopted the same day, H. June 24, The text of the impeachment resolution and articles of impeachment may also be found here.
Upon the recommendations of the Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader, the 12 Senators appointed to be members of the committee to receive and report evidence in the impeachment of Judge Samuel B. He had previously tendered a letter of resignation on June 2, , intended to take effect on June 1, Kent," Committee on the Judiciary of the U. House of Representatives, th Cong. Prior to his resignation, Judge Kent sought to retire from the bench on disability.
Disability retirement would have permitted him to continue to receive a salary for the remainder of his life, absent subsequent resignation or removal from office through the impeachment process. III, sec. His request for disability retirement was rejected by the Chief Judge of the U. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 27, Unlike retirement, resignation from the federal bench results in termination of a former federal judge's judicial salary. July 22, Senator Reid moved to dismiss the impeachment proceedings, stating:.
At the direction of the Senate, the Secretary delivered Judge Kent's original statement of resignation to the President. On June 29, , counsel to the President accepted Judge Kent's resignation on behalf of the President. President, I have conferred with the distinguished Republican leader, Mr.
Kent appointed by the Senate, the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, and the Senator from Florida, Mr. All are in agreement that, with the resignation of Judge Kent, the purposes of the House's prosecution of the Articles of Impeachment against Judge Kent have been achieved.
Judge Kent is no longer serving on the Federal bench, and he has ceased drawing his judicial salary. It is agreed that no useful purpose would now be accomplished by proceeding further with the impeachment proceedings against Judge Kent.
Kent be dismissed and that the Secretary be directed to notify the House of Representatives of this order. See Simpson, Jr. Print, October , and in H. Print, November Simpson, in his article, discussed the British history in considerable depth before moving into a discussion of some aspects of the Constitutional Convention's consideration of impeachment as envisioned in what would become the American system.
Brief of Anthony Higgins and John M. Conviction under the British impeachment system could result in punishment by imprisonment, fine or even death.
Berger, R. Print October , and in H. Print November Historically, a number of circumstances are seen as having triggered or led to an impeachment investigation. These have included charges made on the floor by a Member or Delegate; charges preferred by a memorial, usually referred to a committee for examination; a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee; a message from the President; charges transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory or from a grand jury; facts explored and reported by a House investigating committee; or a suggestion from the Judicial Conference of the United States, under 28 U.
Prior to the expiration of the independent counsel provisions on June 30, , an independent counsel, under 28 U. A resolution introduced by a Member and referred to a committee may take one of two general forms. It may be a resolution impeaching a specified person falling within the constitutionally prescribed category of "President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States. See, e. Nixon for high crimes and misdemeanors ; H.
Nixon for high crimes and misdemeanors. Alternatively, it may be a resolution requesting an inquiry into whether impeachment would be appropriate with regard to a particular individual falling within the constitutional category of officials who may be impeached. Such a resolution, sometimes called an inquiry of impeachment to distinguish it from an impeachment resolution of the type described above, would usually be referred to the House Committee on Rules, which would then generally refer it to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Nixon ; H. On February 6, , the House passed H. Nixon, President of the United States of America. It included text of a resolution impeaching President Nixon and setting forth articles of impeachment against him, which was printed at Cong. However, because of the resignation of President Nixon, the House never voted on the resolution. Precedents differ as to whether the House will choose to initiate an impeachment investigation regarding allegations of misconduct occurring prior to the federal officer's commencing his current tenure of office.
For example, in , in response to H. After its investigation, the House Judiciary Committee reported out a resolution impeaching Judge Archbald both for misconduct while he was in his then current position as a U. Commerce Court, and for misconduct in his previous position as a U. The House agreed to the resolution. Judge Archbald was tried in the Senate, convicted, removed from office, and disqualified from further federal offices. In , the House, without division, referred to a select committee the request by Vice President John C.
Calhoun that the House investigate allegations against him relating to his past official conduct when he was Secretary of War. Similarly, in , at the request of Vice President Schuyler Colfax, the House, pursuant to a resolution, appointed a special committee to investigate charges that Colfax, while Speaker of the House, had accepted a bribe to influence Members of the House. In , the testimony received by the special committee was referred to the House Judiciary Committee to determine whether the testimony warranted articles of impeachment of any federal office not a Member of the House, or made proper further investigation of the case.
In contrast, in the 93 rd Congress, when Vice President Spiro Agnew requested that an impeachment investigation be undertaken into charges that he may have committed impeachable offenses related to his conduct as a Governor of Maryland before commencing his tenure as Vice President, neither the Speaker nor the House took action on the substance of his request.
This question was explored in the Senate impeachment trial of Judge Halsted Ritter, after he was convicted on the seventh article of impeachment brought against him. A colloquy arose after Senator Ashurst sent an order of judgment to the desk providing that Judge Ritter be removed from office.
0コメント