Impeachment Resolution - History

Impeachment Resolution - History

Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited... (Received in the Senate)

HRES 611 RDS

105th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. RES. 611

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 19, 1998

Received

RESOLUTION

Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice, in that:
On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:
(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.


(7) On or about January 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Passed the House of Representatives December 19, 1998.

NEWT GINGRICH,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Attest:
ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.


ArtII.S4.2.3.4 Impeachable Offenses: Early Twentieth Century Practices

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The twentieth century saw further development of the scope of conduct considered by Congress to be impeachable, including the extent to which non-criminal conduct can constitute impeachable behavior and the proper role of a federal judge. Further, the question of judicial review of impeachment s received its first treatment in the federal courts.

The question of whether Congress can designate particular behavior as a high crime or misdemeanor via statute arose in the impeachment of Charles Swayne, a federal district judge for the Northern District of Florida, during the first decade of the twentieth century. A federal statute provided that federal district judges live in their districts and that anyone violating this requirement was guilty of a high misdemeanor. 1 Footnote
Revised Statutes of the United States , 2d Edition, Title XIII, Ch. 2 § 551 (1878) Emily F.V. Tassel & Paul Finkelman , Impeachable Offenses: A Documentary History from 1787 to the Present 123–24 (1999) . Judge Swayne's impeachment originated from a resolution passed by the Florida legislature requesting the state's congressional delegation to recommend an investigation into his behavior. 2 Footnote
Eleanore Bushnell , Crimes, Follies, and Misfortunes: The Federal Impeachment Trials 191 (1992) . The procedures followed by the House in impeaching Judge Swayne were somewhat unique. First, the House referred the impeachment request to the Judiciary Committee for investigation. Following this investigation, the House voted to impeach Judge Swayne based on the report prepared by the Committee. 3 Footnote
39 Cong. Rec. 248 (1905) . The Committee was then tasked with preparing articles of impeachment to present to the Senate. 4 Footnote
Bushnell , supra note 1, at 191–92 . The House then voted again on these individual articles, each of which received less support than the single prior impeachment vote had received. 5 Footnote
Id. at 191–93 . The impeachment articles accused Judge Swayne of a variety of offenses, including misusing the office, abusing the contempt power, and living outside his judicial district. At the trial in the Senate, Judge Swayne essentially admitted to certain accused behavior, although his attorneys did dispute the residency charge, and Swayne instead argued that his actions were not impeachable. 6 Footnote
Tassel & Finkelman , supra note 1, at 123–25 . The Senate vote failed to convict Judge Swayne on any of the charges brought by the House. 7 Footnote
39 Cong. Rec. 3467–72 (1905) .

The impeachability of certain non-criminal behavior for federal judges was firmly established by the impeachment of Judge Robert W. Archbald in 1912. Judge Archbald served as a federal district judge before being appointed to the short-lived U.S. Commerce Court, which was created to review decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 8 Footnote
Tassel & Finkelman , supra note 1, at 132 . He was impeached by the House for behavior occurring both as a federal district judge and as a judge on the Commerce Court. 9 Footnote
48 Cong. Rec. 8904–34 (1912) . The impeachment articles accused Judge Archbald of, among other things, using his position as a judge to generate profitable business deals with potential future litigants in his court. 10 Footnote
Tassel & Finkelman , supra note 1, at 133 . This behavior did not violate any criminal statute and did not appear to violate any laws regulating judges. 11 Footnote
Id. at 134 . Judge Archbald argued at trial that non-criminal conduct was not impeachable. The Senate voted to convict him on five articles and also voted to disqualify him from holding office in the future. 12 Footnote
49 Cong. Rec. 1438–48 (1913) . Four of those articles centered on behavior that occurred while Judge Archbald sat on the Commerce Court, the fifth described his conduct over the course of his career. 13 Footnote
Bushnell , supra note 1, at 221 .

In the 1920s, a series of corruption scandals swirled around the administration of President Warren G. Harding. Most prominently, the Teapot Dome Scandal, which involved the noncompetitive lease of government land to oil companies, implicated numerous government officials and led to resignations and the criminal conviction and incarceration of a cabinet-level official. 14 Footnote
See The Teapot Dome Scandal, 1922–24 , in Congress Investigates: A Critical and Documentary History 460–74 (Roger A. Bruns, David L. Hostetter, Raymond W. Smock, eds., 2011) . The Secretary of the Navy, at the time Edwin Denby, was entrusted with overseeing the development of oil reserves that had recently been located. The Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, convinced Denby that the Interior Department should assume responsibility for two of the reserve locations, including in Teapot Dome, Wyoming. Secretary Fall then leased the reserves to two of his friends, Harry F. Sinclair and Edward L. Doheny. Revelations of the lease without competitive bidding launched a lengthy congressional investigation which sparked the eventual criminal conviction of Fall for bribery and conspiracy and Sinclair for jury tampering. President Harding, however, died in 1923, before congressional hearings began. The affair also generated significant judicial decisions examining the scope of Congress's investigatory powers. 15 Footnote
See McGrain v. Daugherty , 273 U.S. 135, 174–75 (1927) ( We are of opinion that the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. ) Sinclair v. United States , 279 U.S. 263, 295 (1929) (observing that Congress has authority to require disclosures in aid of its constitutional powers).

One aspect of the controversy included an impeachment investigation into the decisions of then-Attorney General Harry M. Daugherty. 16 Footnote
6 Clarence Cannon , Cannon’s Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States § 536–38 (1936), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6/pdf/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6.pdf [hereinafter Cannon ]. In 1922 the House of Representatives referred a resolution to impeach Daugherty for a variety of activities, including his failure to prosecute those involved in the Teapot Dome Scandal, to the House Judiciary Committee. 17 Footnote
See 62 Cong. Rec. 12,381 (1922) Charges of Hon. Oscar E. Keller Against the Attorney General and the Attorney General's Answers Thereto Before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 67th Cong., 3d Sess., on H. Res. 425 (1922) . The House Judiciary Committee eventually found there was not sufficient evidence to impeach Daugherty. However, in 1924, a Senate special committee was formed to investigate similar matters. 18 Footnote
S. Res. 157, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924) Hearings Before the Select Committee on Investigation of the Attorney General, United States Senate, Investigation of Hon. Harry M. Daugherty, Formerly Attorney General of the United States, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924) . That investigation spawned allegations of a variety of improper activities in the Justice Department. Daugherty resigned on March 28, 1924. 19 Footnote
See The Teapot Dome Scandal, 1922–24 , in Congress Investigates: A Critical and Documentary History 460–74 (Roger A. Bruns, David L. Hostetter, Raymond W. Smock, eds., 2011) .

In 1926, federal district judge George W. English was impeached for a variety of alleged offenses, including (1) directing a U.S. marshal to gather a number of state and local officials into court in an imaginary case where Judge English proceeded to denounce them (2) threatening two members of the press with imprisonment without sufficient cause and (3) showing favoritism to certain litigants before his court. 20 Footnote
67 Cong. Rec. 6705–55 (1926) 6 Cannon , supra note 16, at §§ 544–47 . Judge English resigned before a trial in the Senate occurred and the Senate dismissed the charges without conducting a trial in his absence. 21 Footnote
Tassel & Finkelman , supra note 1, at 144–46 .

Federal district judge Harold Louderback was impeached in 1933 for showing favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers, which were coveted positions following the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Depression. 22 Footnote
76 Cong. Rec. 4913–26 (1933) 6 Cannon , supra note 16, at §§ 514–24 . The House authorized a subcommittee to investigate, which held hearings and recommended to the Judiciary Committee that Judge Louderback be impeached. 23 Footnote
Bushnell , supra note 1, at 191 . The Judiciary Committee actually voted against recommending impeachment , urging censure of Judge Louderback instead, but permitted the minority report that favored impeachment to be reported to the House together with the majority report. 24 Footnote
Id. at 246 . The full House voted to impeach anyway, 25 Footnote
Id. at 245 . but the Senate failed to convict him. 26 Footnote
77 Cong. Rec. 4064–88 (1933) .


If Convicted, Removal From Office, Possible Disqualification from Government Service

If a president is acquitted by the Senate, the impeachment trial is over. But if he or she is found guilty, the Senate trial moves to the sentencing or “punishment” phase. The Constitution allows for two types of punishments for a president found guilty of an impeachable offense: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.”

The first punishment, removal from office, is automatically enforced following a two-thirds guilty vote. But the second punishment, disqualification from holding any future government position, requires a separate Senate vote. In this case, only a simple majority is required to ban the impeached president from any future government office for life. That second vote has never been held since no president has been found guilty in the Senate trial.


The Use of Impeachment

The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times but less than a third have led to full impeachments. Just eight—all federal judges—have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, three Presidents [Andrew Johnson in 1868, William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton in 1998, and Donald J. Trump in 2019 and 2021], a cabinet secretary (William Belknap in 1876), and a U.S. Senator (William Blount of Tennessee in 1797) have also been impeached. In only three instances—all involving removed federal judges—has the Senate taken the additional step of barring them from ever holding future federal office.

Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers. Blount, who had been accused of instigating an insurrection of American Indians to further British interests in Florida, was not convicted, but the Senate did expel him. Other impeachments have featured judges taking the bench when drunk or profiting from their position. The trial of President Johnson, however, focused on whether the President could remove cabinet officers without obtaining Congress’s approval. Johnson’s acquittal firmly set the precedent—debated from the beginning of the nation—that the President may remove appointees even if they required Senate confirmation to hold office.


Long Before Trump, Impeachment Loomed Over Multiple Presidents

While only three previous presidents faced serious threat of removal, one out of four confronted formal accusations in the House.

WASHINGTON — As President George Bush prepared to order American troops into war to eject Iraqi invaders from Kuwait, he feared it could end his presidency. “If it drags out,” he dictated to his diary on Dec. 20, 1990, “not only will I take the blame, but I will probably have impeachment proceedings filed against me.”

Eleven days later, in a letter to his children, he quoted a Democratic senator telling him that “if it is drawn out,” he should “be prepared for some in Congress to file impeachment papers.” On the day the war began , a Democratic congressman did just that, introducing a resolution of impeachment accusing him of “conspiring to commit crimes against the peace."

Fortunately for Mr. Bush, the war was relatively brief and efforts to impeach him fizzled. But he was hardly the only president to worry. While President Trump is just the fourth commander in chief in American history to confront a serious threat of impeachment, the prospect hung over many of his predecessors, a nagging worry in the back of the mind for some, a constitutional sword of Damocles for others.

Impeachment has served not just as a means for removing a corrupt president from office, as outlined in the Constitution — in fact, it has never actually accomplished that purpose. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached by the House but acquitted after Senate trials, while President Richard M. Nixon resigned before the full House could vote. But impeachment has served as a deterrent, a consequence that presidents had to consider when making decisions that crossed into questionable territory.

Presidents have been accused of high crimes and misdemeanors for misconduct and for disputed policy choices. They have been targeted for impeachment for abusing their power, withholding information from Congress and providing poor moral leadership. They have been threatened with removal for violating court orders, statutory law, the Constitution and even the United Nations Charter.

Beyond Johnson, Nixon, Mr. Clinton and now Mr. Trump, lawmakers have filed formal impeachment resolutions against at least seven other presidents, meaning that one out of every four occupants of the White House has faced accusations of high crimes and misdemeanors, while others were threatened. Most of the time, the effort posed no serious jeopardy. But as with Mr. Bush, it could weigh on them nonetheless.

“Every president’s concerned about his legacy and that leads them to be concerned about whether impeachment is a possibility,” said Michael J. Gerhardt , a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina. “Oftentimes, that leads them to be very vigilant to monitor misconduct — and sometimes they are and sometimes they’re not.”

As conceived by the framers of the Constitution, impeachment was never meant to remedy incompetence or policy differences, akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, reserving it for larger offenses against the republic. But the framers never explained precisely what they meant and so each generation has, in effect, redefined it.

The first formal impeachment effort against a president came in 1843 when a House member introduced a resolution calling for an inquiry against President John Tyler for “arbitrary, despotic and corrupt abuse of the veto power” after he rejected two tariff bills favored by his own Whig Party.

The clash was a test of Tyler’s legitimacy. He was the first vice president to succeed to the presidency after President William Henry Harrison died a month into his term and Tyler had no strong support in either political party. The matter came to a vote by the full House, which rejected the resolution 127 to 83.

In the years that followed, other presidents were threatened with impeachment. After President James K. Polk took the country to war with Mexico on misleading terms, opponents raised the prospect of impeachment. “In my judgment, it is an impeachable offense,” Daniel Webster declared at a rally in Boston’s Faneuil Hall.

A committee held hearings on impeaching President James Buchanan, widely considered the worst American commander in chief. Opponents talked about impeaching President Ulysses S. Grant amid corruption allegations against his administration. Even the sainted President Abraham Lincoln was warned by an adviser weeks into his administration that he might be impeached if he abandoned Fort Sumter.

Johnson’s impeachment by the House in 1868 followed previous attempts to impeach him on other charges. The House voted the year before to authorize an investigation of his conduct and the House Judiciary Committee reported an impeachment resolution but the full House defeated it 108 to 57 . Only after he fired Edwin Stanton, the war secretary allied with the Radical Republicans in Congress, did the House vote to impeach Johnson.

His acquittal by a single vote in his Senate trial did not discourage future lawmakers from turning to impeachment. In 1896, a congressman introduced a resolution to impeach President Grover Cleveland in a dispute over the sale of bonds. During the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover faced an impeachment resolution for increasing unemployment and taxes, a tad belated since it was submitted in December 1932, a month after he lost re-election.

In April 1952, the House debated impeaching President Harry S. Truman three days in a row after he seized the nation’s steel mills to thwart a worker strike during the Korean War. The resolution also charged him for sending troops to Korea under United Nations command without congressional approval and firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur. In the end, it never came to a vote but the Supreme Court invalidated the steel plant seizure.

Like Johnson, Nixon faced down impeachment before Watergate. Three resolutions were introduced against him in 1972 charging him, among other things, with breaking off peace talks to end the Vietnam War and escalating the air war. None were acted on and Nixon was re-elected.

But 17 more resolutions were introduced over the next year focused on his secret war in Cambodia, the firing of the Watergate prosecutor and illegal wiretapping of journalists and critics. Twenty more resolutions were later introduced. Yet when the House Judiciary Committee ultimately approved three articles against him, lawmakers kept them focused on Watergate.

President Ronald Reagan was threatened with impeachment twice. Eight House members introduced a resolution to impeach him in 1983 over his invasion of Grenada, which was referred to committee and never acted on. Four years later, Representative Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas introduced six articles of impeachment stemming from the Iran-contra scandal. The White House feared impeachment was a real danger, but Democratic congressional leaders decided not to proceed to avoid a divisive fight.

The same Mr. Gonzalez introduced the impeachment resolution against Mr. Bush on Jan. 16, 1991, as the Persian Gulf war opened, then proposed a second one a month later. Neither was acted on.

Mr. Clinton, like Johnson and Nixon before him, was targeted for impeachment more than once. Eighteen House members offered a resolution calling for an inquiry in 1997, a year before the independent counsel Ken Starr filed his report leading to Mr. Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up an affair with a former White House intern.

President George W. Bush faced impeachment efforts by backbench Democrats over the invasion of Iraq on what turned out to be false reports that Baghdad had unconventional weapons. By Mr. Bush’s last year in office, one Democratic opponent had collected so many complaints that he submitted 35 articles of impeachment, including for failing to adequately respond to Hurricane Katrina they were sent to committee and not acted on.

Some conservative Republicans talked about impeaching President Barack Obama over everything from the Benghazi attack to the birther conspiracy theory without following through. But Mr. Obama took the possibility more seriously in 2013 when he considered a military strike against Syria to retaliate for a chemical weapons attack on civilians, a factor that influenced his decision to abort the plan. A few months later the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing in which Republicans discussed impeaching Mr. Obama, although it went nowhere.

Few if any elected presidents faced talk of impeachment as early as Mr. Trump. Days after his election in 2016, speculation began because of his many ethical issues. Mr. Trump now complains that Democrats have been out to get him from the start and are only using the Ukraine matter as an excuse his opponents say that Mr. Trump has violated standards so many times that he brought this on himself.

Either way, this moment might resonate for many of his predecessors. “Any time you have a president who pushes the boundaries — and Trump has been pushing them since day one — he’s going to push too far and there’s going to be pushback,” Mr. Gerhardt said. “And impeachment is the core of any pushback.”


Impeachment Resolution - History

  • Impeachment resolutions made by members of the House of Representatives are turned over to the House Judiciary Committee which decides whether the resolution and its allegations of wrongdoing by the President merits a referral to the full House for a vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry.
  • The entire House of Representatives votes for or against a formal impeachment inquiry, needing only a simple majority (a single vote) for approval.
  • If approved, the House Judiciary Committee conducts an investigation to determine (similar to a grand jury) if there is enough evidence to warrant articles of impeachment (indictments) against the President. The Committee then drafts articles of impeachment pertaining to specific charges supported by the evidence. The Committee votes on each article of impeachment, deciding whether to refer each article to the full House for a vote.
  • If the House Judiciary Committee refers one or more articles of impeachment, the entire House of Representatives votes on whether the article(s) merit a trial in the Senate, needing only a simple majority for approval.
  • If the full House approves at least one article of impeachment, the President is technically impeached and the matter is referred to the U.S. Senate. The House then appoints members of Congress to act as managers (prosecutors).
  • The trial of the President is held in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding. The President can be represented by anyone he chooses. He may appear personally or leave his defense in the hands of his lawyers.
  • The entire Senate may conduct the trial or it or it may be delegated to a special committee which would report all the evidence to the full Senate.
  • The actual trial is conducted in a courtroom-like proceeding including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. During questioning, Senators remain silent, directing all questions in writing to the Chief Justice.
  • After hearing all of the evidence and closing arguments, the Senate deliberates behind closed doors then votes in open session on whether to convict or acquit the President. The vote to convict must be by a two thirds majority, or 67 Senators. If this occurs, the President is removed from office and is succeeded by the Vice President. The Senate's verdict is final and there is no right of appeal.

Copyright © 2000 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved

Term of use: Private home/school non-commercial, non-Internet re-usage only is allowed of any text, graphics, photos, audio clips, other electronic files or materials from The History Place.


A bitter defeat

Throughout the entire impeachment inquiry process, Trump has constantly assailed and insulted the lawmakers leading the probe, the reporters covering it, and the government employees testifying in it. Trump has insisted that a July 25 phone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in which he asked for the investigations as "a favor," was "perfect," and that the entire impeachment effort is part of a personal vendetta against him and a desire by Democrats to overthrow his 2016 election.

On Tuesday, Trump wrote a furious letter to Pelosi, calling his impeachment "an illegal, partisan attempted coup."

"You are the ones interfering in America's elections," Trump wrote in the six-page screed. "You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain," Trump wrote.

But it is partly because Trump was so furious, and was so personally undone by the impeachment, that Wednesday's vote marked such a bitter defeat. For a president obsessed with winning, the prospect of being forever part of the group of three U.S. presidents in the country's history who have been impeached likely represents a singular professional and personal humiliation.


Article II, Section 4

The final section of Article II, which generally describes the executive branch, specifies that the &ldquoPresident, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States&rdquo shall be removed from office if convicted in an impeachment trial of &ldquoTreason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.&rdquo Two clauses in Article I lay out the role of the House of Representatives and the Senate in impeachments and in trials of impeachment. In practice, impeachments by the House have been rare, and convictions after a trial by the Senate even less common. Three Presidents, one Senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office.

This sparse history has given Congress relatively few opportunities to flesh out the bare bones of the constitutional text. The Impeachment Clause was included in the Constitution in order to create another check against abuses by government officials and to give Congress the ability to remove from power an unfit officer who might otherwise be doing damage to the public good. Unsurprisingly, most &ldquocivil officers of the United States&rdquo who have found themselves damaged by scandal have preferred to resign rather than endure an impeachment. The House and Senate have refused to act on impeachment charges against individuals who were not then holding a federal office. The Senate early on decided that members of Congress should be expelled by their individual chambers rather than be subjected to an impeachment trial. Presidents have acted quickly to remove problematic members of the executive branch. As a practical matter, judges and Presidents have been the primary targets of impeachment inquiries.

Much of the controversy surrounding the Impeachment Clause has revolved around the meaning of &ldquohigh Crimes and Misdemeanors,&rdquo a phrase that is unique to the impeachment context. The Clause seems to rule out the possibility of Congress impeaching and removing officials simply for incompetence or general unfitness for office. Impeachments are not a remedy for government officials who are simply bad at their jobs. It is a remedy for abuses of public office. But the line between general unfitness and abuse of office can be blurry.

The first Senate conviction in an impeachment trial was of a federal judge, John Pickering, who was charged with issuing rulings that were &ldquocontrary to his trust and duty as a judge&rdquo and &ldquoin violation of the laws of the United States,&rdquo as well as appearing on the bench &ldquoin a state of total intoxication&rdquo in a manner &ldquodisgraceful to his own character as a judge and degrading to the honor of the United States.&rdquo The judge&rsquos son filed a petition with the Senate explaining the &ldquoreal situation,&rdquo that his father &ldquohas been, and now is, insane.&rdquo The judge no longer had the mental capacity to commit high crimes. While the Senate preferred not to delve into that question in detail, it was uncomfortable voting on a resolution stating that the judge was &ldquoguilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.&rdquo The senators simply concluded that he was &ldquoguilty as charged,&rdquo and voted to remove him from office. The Senate was not anxious to say that Pickering had committed a crime, but neither was it willing to leave him on the bench.

While the Pickering case was idiosyncratic and awkward, it raised issues that remain unresolved about the scope of the impeachment power. Can a government official be impeached and convicted for innocent mistakes, or must they have bad intentions? Is it sufficient to justify an impeachment and conviction if a government official commits acts that are &ldquodisgraceful,&rdquo contrary to the &ldquotrust and duty&rdquo of their office, or &ldquodegrading to the honor of the United States,&rdquo or can impeachment only be justified when an official has committed criminal acts? Do &ldquohigh crimes&rdquo include only criminal offenses for which one could be prosecuted in a court of law, or can they include other forms of misconduct? Are some violations of the law too trivial to be considered &ldquohigh crimes&rdquo that would justify an impeachment? Can private misdeeds justify an impeachment, or must the actions in question be connected to the conduct of the office that an individual holds?

While still serving as a member of the House of Representatives, Gerald Ford once said that impeachable offenses are whatever a majority of the House considered them to be. The burden is on those who want to bring impeachment charges to persuade a majority of the members of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the members of the Senate that an act is so serious as to justify removing an individual from office. The impeachment power is a tool that most members of Congress are unwilling to use if it can be avoided, but they have also wanted to preserve it as a tool that is flexible enough to be used in any exceptional circumstances that might arise.


Vote Details

&ldquoAye&rdquo and &ldquoYea&rdquo mean the same thing, and so do &ldquoNo&rdquo and &ldquoNay&rdquo. Congress uses different words in different sorts of votes.

The U.S. Constitution says that bills should be decided on by the &ldquoyeas and nays&rdquo (Article I, Section 7). Congress takes this literally and uses &ldquoyea&rdquo and &ldquonay&rdquo when voting on the final passage of bills.

All Senate votes use these words. But the House of Representatives uses &ldquoAye&rdquo and &ldquoNo&rdquo in other sorts of votes.

Vote District Party Representative Score
Yea NC 12 th D Adams, Alma 0.19811893719065882
Yea CA 31 st D Aguilar, Pete 0.26829181219139153
Yea TX 32 nd D Allred, Colin 0.34143507207008605
Yea MA 4 th D Auchincloss, Jake 0.2459530536499981
Yea IA 3 rd D Axne, Cynthia 0.40131088835300954
Yea CA 44 th D Barragán, Nanette 0.10987734432179123
Yea CA 37 th D Bass, Karen 0.1388797530906433
Yea OH 3 rd D Beatty, Joyce 0.2466166159740499
Yea CA 7 th D Bera, Ami 0.33609518288501883
Yea VA 8 th D Beyer, Donald 0.20589648175347125
Yea GA 2 nd D Bishop, Sanford 0.3490882915167671
Yea OR 3 rd D Blumenauer, Earl 0.1187973598713721
Yea DE D Blunt Rochester, Lisa 0.24584372607757918
Yea OR 1 st D Bonamici, Suzanne 0.19008440459433742
Yea GA 7 th D Bourdeaux, Carolyn 0.2850622346327828
Yea NY 16 th D Bowman, Jamaal 0.20402853829850526
Yea PA 2 nd D Boyle, Brendan 0.2697098544624368
Yea MD 4 th D Brown, Anthony 0.2232165863879255
Yea CA 26 th D Brownley, Julia 0.2605095967933195
Yea MO 1 st D Bush, Cori 0.2015019745437922
Yea IL 17 th D Bustos, Cheri 0.34071571115890054
Yea NC 1 st D Butterfield, G.K. 0.23613562359263368
Yea CA 24 th D Carbajal, Salud 0.28285356455611504
Yea IN 7 th D Carson, André 0.1079975637092069
Yea PA 8 th D Cartwright, Matt 0.29831727908398153
Yea HI 1 st D Case, Ed 0.2663949145444721
Yea IL 6 th D Casten, Sean 0.21730014816786605
Yea FL 14 th D Castor, Kathy 0.1652237240243685
Yea TX 20 th D Castro, Joaquin 0.22324203004691748
Yea CA 27 th D Chu, Judy 0.128413518106929
Yea RI 1 st D Cicilline, David 0.19609054858308797
Yea MA 5 th D Clark, Katherine 0.18647364786971457
Yea NY 9 th D Clarke, Yvette 0.10540388765144763
Yea MO 5 th D Cleaver, Emanuel 0.21723936602780364
Yea SC 6 th D Clyburn, Jim 0.2544907810274565
Yea TN 9 th D Cohen, Steve 0.16890683929195932
Yea VA 11 th D Connolly, Gerald 0.22218066244574175
Yea TN 5 th D Cooper, Jim 0.2644754693505959
Yea CA 46 th D Correa, Luis 0.3236007494910874
Yea CA 16 th D Costa, Jim 0.37157668787505066
Yea CT 2 nd D Courtney, Joe 0.3160155720957333
Yea MN 2 nd D Craig, Angie 0.35155471324158843
Yea FL 13 th D Crist, Charlie 0.30521931015148124
Yea CO 6 th D Crow, Jason 0.29255218366086694
Yea TX 28 th D Cuellar, Henry 0.5277647675322872
Yea CA 29 th D Cárdenas, Tony 0.20956214072956592
Yea KS 3 rd D Davids, Sharice 0.2815128381293667
Yea IL 7 th D Davis, Danny 0.1535434314324724
Yea OR 4 th D DeFazio, Peter 0.27022537287365195
Yea CO 1 st D DeGette, Diana 0.21910562656610952
Yea CT 3 rd D DeLauro, Rosa 0.21083412344358826
Yea CA 11 th D DeSaulnier, Mark 0.11491829070250058
Yea PA 4 th D Dean, Madeleine 0.20990120617570654
Yea WA 1 st D DelBene, Suzan 0.2749885734984383
Yea NY 19 th D Delgado, Antonio 0.39180018076502415
Yea FL 10 th D Demings, Val 0.2426741378908289
Yea FL 22 nd D Deutch, Ted 0.2556075545126818
Yea MI 12 th D Dingell, Debbie 0.2283069509871572
Yea TX 35 th D Doggett, Lloyd 0.22920606956299083
Yea PA 18 th D Doyle, Michael 0.27607096292021926
Yea TX 16 th D Escobar, Veronica 0.19717903315297491
Yea CA 18 th D Eshoo, Anna 0.24171894602980937
Yea NY 13 th D Espaillat, Adriano 0.08910337699230768
Yea PA 3 rd D Evans, Dwight 0.18313712230258758
Yea TX 7 th D Fletcher, Lizzie 0.3075372344281901
Yea IL 11 th D Foster, Bill 0.28401155217433777
Yea FL 21 st D Frankel, Lois 0.25520702349158086
Yea OH 11 th D Fudge, Marcia 0.20722292725885097
Yea AZ 7 th D Gallego, Ruben 0.24331807074449724
Yea CA 3 rd D Garamendi, John 0.29108632057181794
Yea TX 29 th D Garcia, Sylvia 0.1688063242240262
Yea IL 4 th D García, Chuy 0.05172339813199071
Yea ME 2 nd D Golden, Jared 0.38333778841374266
Yea CA 34 th D Gomez, Jimmy 0.15768849496154122
Yea TX 15 th D Gonzalez, Vicente 0.4312960281720761
Yea NJ 5 th D Gottheimer, Josh 0.533383323343284
Yea TX 9 th D Green, Al 0.164125592552128
Yea AZ 3 rd D Grijalva, Raúl 0.09036927991304589
Yea NM 1 st D Haaland, Debra 0.1453484844926019
Yea CA 10 th D Harder, Josh 0.36877448547487407
Yea FL 20 th D Hastings, Alcee 0.14896298156361026
Yea CT 5 th D Hayes, Jahana 0.08044703034699052
Yea NY 26 th D Higgins, Brian 0.2565293309358675
Yea CT 4 th D Himes, Jim 0.2926273433122922
Yea NV 4 th D Horsford, Steven 0.1960578330332
Yea PA 6 th D Houlahan, Chrissy 0.3210815312687065
Yea MD 5 th D Hoyer, Steny 0.2636703453833092
Yea CA 2 nd D Huffman, Jared 0.1841181523453704
Yea TX 18 th D Jackson Lee, Sheila 0.12461686833971176
Yea CA 53 rd D Jacobs, Sara 0.2459530536499981
Yea WA 7 th D Jayapal, Pramila 0.06467065150032011
Yea NY 8 th D Jeffries, Hakeem 0.1978699078906313
Yea TX 30 th D Johnson, Eddie 0.15469687213939662
Yea GA 4 th D Johnson, Hank 0.15396317248334673
Yea NY 17 th D Jones, Mondaire 0.1607669596128085
Yea HI 2 nd D Kahele, Kaialiʻi 0.2459530536499981
Yea OH 9 th D Kaptur, Marcy 0.26722030286190085
Yea MA 9 th D Keating, William 0.2854663928865167
Yea IL 2 nd D Kelly, Robin 0.22241245928219702
Yea CA 17 th D Khanna, Ro 0.16015716094032698
Yea MI 5 th D Kildee, Daniel 0.25766943632105055
Yea WA 6 th D Kilmer, Derek 0.36869420811909054
Yea NJ 3 rd D Kim, Andy 0.34186599042454985
Yea WI 3 rd D Kind, Ron 0.4756064358539101
Yea AZ 2 nd D Kirkpatrick, Ann 0.2770257621014274
Yea IL 8 th D Krishnamoorthi, Raja 0.3028475594642324
Yea NH 2 nd D Kuster, Ann 0.3657095311881219
Yea PA 17 th D Lamb, Conor 0.3624141222008058
Yea RI 2 nd D Langevin, Jim 0.24947041863839495
Yea WA 2 nd D Larsen, Rick 0.24236448554939266
Yea CT 1 st D Larson, John 0.2637310500588691
Yea MI 14 th D Lawrence, Brenda 0.17981622767689565
Yea FL 5 th D Lawson, Al 0.2706846662351268
Yea CA 13 th D Lee, Barbara 0.0
Yea NV 3 rd D Lee, Susie 0.3293665430342645
Yea NM 3 rd D Leger Fernandez, Teresa 0.2522470618008649
Yea MI 9 th D Levin, Andy 0.1620095523023593
Yea CA 49 th D Levin, Mike 0.22666847593330527
Yea CA 33 rd D Lieu, Ted 0.21744227575289968
Yea CA 19 th D Lofgren, Zoe 0.2705232488978301
Yea CA 47 th D Lowenthal, Alan 0.1254923279090755
Yea VA 2 nd D Luria, Elaine 0.3453553309888563
Yea MA 8 th D Lynch, Stephen 0.20629256459997813
Yea NJ 7 th D Malinowski, Tom 0.2748289346466618
Yea NY 12 th D Maloney, Carolyn 0.146528443146077
Yea NY 18 th D Maloney, Sean 0.26602265022407523
Yea NC 6 th D Manning, Kathy 0.2459530536499981
Yea CA 6 th D Matsui, Doris 0.21916208184701313
Yea GA 6 th D McBath, Lucy 0.29928288486856314
Yea MN 4 th D McCollum, Betty 0.20063860873053277
Yea VA 4 th D McEachin, Donald 0.19871034680021174
Yea MA 2 nd D McGovern, Jim 0.15165534305055406
Yea CA 9 th D McNerney, Jerry 0.20256178087560822
Yea NY 5 th D Meeks, Gregory 0.17382859979527643
Yea NY 6 th D Meng, Grace 0.17494366729345345
Yea MD 7 th D Mfume, Kweisi 0.2459530536499981
Yea WI 4 th D Moore, Gwen 0.12465699048930429
Yea NY 25 th D Morelle, Joseph 0.22583968163786386
Yea MA 6 th D Moulton, Seth 0.32093062858889654
Yea IN 1 st D Mrvan, Frank 0.2459530536499981
Yea FL 7 th D Murphy, Stephanie 0.4051698005676275
Yea NY 10 th D Nadler, Jerrold 0.09245366291125956
Yea CA 32 nd D Napolitano, Grace 0.16544947317034378
Yea MA 1 st D Neal, Richard 0.28123343414144536
Yea CO 2 nd D Neguse, Joe 0.23877317181360713
Yea IL 3 rd D Newman, Marie 0.2459530536499981
Yea NJ 1 st D Norcross, Donald 0.3068192597421801
Yea NY 14 th D Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria 0.10476719831918666
Yea MN 5 th D Omar, Ilhan 0.08884331353966021
Yea AZ 1 st D O’Halleran, Tom 0.44879076232315696
Yea NJ 6 th D Pallone, Frank 0.2077853260386879
Yea CA 20 th D Panetta, Jimmy 0.2894712622524569
Yea NH 1 st D Pappas, Chris 0.3285589601241621
Yea NJ 9 th D Pascrell, Bill 0.2744577030676946
Yea NJ 10 th D Payne, Donald 0.17402008307531225
Yea CA 12 th D Pelosi, Nancy 0.28812247783202943
Yea CO 7 th D Perlmutter, Ed 0.32868174286695095
Yea CA 52 nd D Peters, Scott 0.35541373339695226
Yea MN 3 rd D Phillips, Dean 0.4227878529705643
Yea ME 1 st D Pingree, Chellie 0.2511814601367076
Yea WI 2 nd D Pocan, Mark 0.16008589798112002
Yea CA 45 th D Porter, Katie 0.19287137775353214
Yea MA 7 th D Pressley, Ayanna 0.056135631476120336
Yea NC 4 th D Price, David 0.23869405935766505
Yea IL 5 th D Quigley, Mike 0.21625796592501445
Yea MD 8 th D Raskin, Jamie 0.12282024890560463
Yea NY 4 th D Rice, Kathleen 0.3545470829599452
Yea LA 2 nd D Richmond, Cedric 0.23289177436393826
Yea NC 2 nd D Ross, Deborah 0.26706780506314026
Yea CA 40 th D Roybal-Allard, Lucille 0.1538672414507219
Yea CA 36 th D Ruiz, Raul 0.32536560186262076
Yea MD 2 nd D Ruppersberger, A. Dutch 0.35320091383544056
Yea IL 1 st D Rush, Bobby 0.20226324240670315
Yea OH 13 th D Ryan, Tim 0.32786447813837205
Yea MD 3 rd D Sarbanes, John 0.2044683117139755
Yea PA 5 th D Scanlon, Mary 0.14471497319682552
Yea IL 9 th D Schakowsky, Jan 0.06429206395462543
Yea CA 28 th D Schiff, Adam 0.2183224155274429
Yea IL 10 th D Schneider, Brad 0.33369848071492303
Yea OR 5 th D Schrader, Kurt 0.4085521917340097
Yea WA 8 th D Schrier, Kim 0.2898521706564001
Yea GA 13 th D Scott, David 0.2927442885308731
Yea VA 3 rd D Scott, Bobby 0.17695472909558266
Yea AL 7 th D Sewell, Terri 0.27927341594848
Yea CA 30 th D Sherman, Brad 0.30374698819604234
Yea NJ 11 th D Sherrill, Mikie 0.2895752436012185
Yea NJ 8 th D Sires, Albio 0.22089650968426228
Yea MI 8 th D Slotkin, Elissa 0.34470128752117324
Yea WA 9 th D Smith, Adam 0.14115781356071885
Yea FL 9 th D Soto, Darren 0.2359730229913548
Yea VA 7 th D Spanberger, Abigail 0.4282223948217463
Yea CA 14 th D Speier, Jackie 0.19312173428884968
Yea AZ 9 th D Stanton, Greg 0.3407085189936883
Yea MI 11 th D Stevens, Haley 0.26887359384063886
Yea WA 10 th D Strickland, Marilyn 0.2459530536499981
Yea NY 3 rd D Suozzi, Thomas 0.2980771405840879
Yea CA 15 th D Swalwell, Eric 0.2666024560629873
Yea CA 38 th D Sánchez, Linda 0.19752135027928286
Yea CA 41 st D Takano, Mark 0.15315507713608031
Yea MS 2 nd D Thompson, Bennie 0.1624244004777295
Yea CA 5 th D Thompson, Mike 0.2816991184627223
Yea NV 1 st D Titus, Dina 0.24206663023975483
Yea MI 13 th D Tlaib, Rashida 0.07132901242519815
Yea NY 20 th D Tonko, Paul 0.23826490129546773
Yea CA 35 th D Torres, Norma 0.24063203952373577
Yea NY 15 th D Torres, Ritchie 0.202083834841333
Yea MA 3 rd D Trahan, Lori 0.21303188148301913
Yea MD 6 th D Trone, David 0.26224791016380977
Yea IL 14 th D Underwood, Lauren 0.24989794684759856
Yea CA 51 st D Vargas, Juan 0.20696041581976912
Yea TX 33 rd D Veasey, Marc 0.2730769232312155
Yea TX 34 th D Vela, Filemon 0.31701158996001016
Yea NY 7 th D Velázquez, Nydia 0.12810633280328496
Yea FL 23 rd D Wasserman Schultz, Debbie 0.21050436296261804
Yea CA 43 rd D Waters, Maxine 0.16469815266309473
Yea NJ 12 th D Watson Coleman, Bonnie 0.09159349087284775
Yea VT D Welch, Peter 0.23769620076491665
Yea VA 10 th D Wexton, Jennifer 0.2510518217129467
Yea PA 7 th D Wild, Susan 0.2448368135352007
Yea GA 5 th D Williams, Nikema 0.21129152840044696
Yea FL 24 th D Wilson, Frederica 0.1179726504604999
Yea KY 3 rd D Yarmuth, John 0.23496374289683833
Yea WY R Cheney, Liz 0.6353199637689013
Yea OH 16 th R Gonzalez, Anthony 0.5741556398924551
Yea WA 3 rd R Herrera Beutler, Jaime 0.5309969133839934
Yea NY 24 th R Katko, John 0.5409096083708025
Yea IL 16 th R Kinzinger, Adam 0.5929818446458077
Yea MI 3 rd R Meijer, Peter 0.41622494195044263
Yea WA 4 th R Newhouse, Dan 0.7156299133203955
Yea SC 7 th R Rice, Tom 0.6628121854516491
Yea MI 6 th R Upton, Fred 0.5149719807194753
Yea CA 21 st R Valadao, David 0.557137758463282
Nay AL 4 th R Aderholt, Robert 0.6507892916839001
Nay GA 12 th R Allen, Rick 0.8662126003033708
Nay NV 2 nd R Amodei, Mark 0.5719080205010912
Nay ND R Armstrong, Kelly 0.5698130541504869
Nay TX 19 th R Arrington, Jodey 0.6945556656952924
Nay TX 36 th R Babin, Brian 0.9143460005647571
Nay NE 2 nd R Bacon, Don 0.7417030399767944
Nay IN 4 th R Baird, James 0.6826386252815707
Nay OH 12 th R Balderson, Troy 0.6761636929230597
Nay IN 3 rd R Banks, Jim 0.8383756371095115
Nay KY 6 th R Barr, Andy 0.7050808611204846
Nay OR 2 nd R Bentz, Cliff 0.8662126003033708
Nay MI 1 st R Bergman, Jack 0.627052163859812
Nay OK 5 th R Bice, Stephanie 0.8662126003033708
Nay AZ 5 th R Biggs, Andy 0.7996081411137624
Nay FL 12 th R Bilirakis, Gus 0.7232381255484374
Nay NC 9 th R Bishop, Dan 0.6367779865896112
Nay CO 3 rd R Boebert, Lauren 0.49967766847787326
Nay IL 12 th R Bost, Mike 0.6960464686556688
Nay TX 8 th R Brady, Kevin 0.5568722519473318
Nay AL 5 th R Brooks, Mo 0.7213717790181138
Nay FL 16 th R Buchanan, Vern 0.5014274592549918
Nay CO 4 th R Buck, Ken 0.6633195581367733
Nay IN 8 th R Bucshon, Larry 0.682005692328279
Nay NC 13 th R Budd, Ted 0.9017461969224978
Nay TN 2 nd R Burchett, Tim 0.583316645019722
Nay TX 26 th R Burgess, Michael 0.6773434446548777
Nay CA 42 nd R Calvert, Ken 0.6575696414545841
Nay FL 3 rd R Cammack, Kat 0.47888003509008154
Nay AL 1 st R Carl, Jerry 0.8662126003033708
Nay GA 1 st R Carter, Earl 0.710553841181427
Nay TX 31 st R Carter, John 0.559428794022998
Nay NC 11 th R Cawthorn, David 0.8662126003033708
Nay OH 1 st R Chabot, Steve 0.741044840358745
Nay VA 6 th R Cline, Ben 0.631083637174681
Nay TX 27 th R Cloud, Michael 0.6395323461918296
Nay GA 9 th R Clyde, Andrew 0.4338865712414397
Nay OK 4 th R Cole, Tom 0.7262606754513369
Nay KY 1 st R Comer, James 0.6599383976180205
Nay AR 1 st R Crawford, Eric 0.7552312405408121
Nay TX 2 nd R Crenshaw, Dan 0.6528056104718692
Nay UT 3 rd R Curtis, John 0.6074957344491821
Nay OH 8 th R Davidson, Warren 0.6558187777136062
Nay IL 13 th R Davis, Rodney 0.6562137261588121
Nay TN 4 th R DesJarlais, Scott 0.7456735269109871
Nay FL 25 th R Diaz-Balart, Mario 0.5694441371365385
Nay FL 19 th R Donalds, Byron 0.40266269047335984
Nay SC 3 rd R Duncan, Jeff 0.8758195885440143
Nay FL 2 nd R Dunn, Neal 0.7202014153651286
Nay MN 6 th R Emmer, Tom 0.7606302234040115
Nay KS 4 th R Estes, Ron 0.6433229768808267
Nay TX 4 th R Fallon, Pat 0.8662126003033708
Nay IA 4 th R Feenstra, Randy 0.4818487294720769
Nay GA 3 rd R Ferguson, Drew 0.6570804823167344
Nay MN 7 th R Fischbach, Michelle 0.46423161218274606
Nay WI 5 th R Fitzgerald, Scott 0.8662126003033708
Nay PA 1 st R Fitzpatrick, Brian 0.6150777050771549
Nay TN 3 rd R Fleischmann, Chuck 0.8662126003033708
Nay NE 1 st R Fortenberry, Jeff 0.6049961242981524
Nay NC 5 th R Foxx, Virginia 0.5578024093293749
Nay FL 15 th R Franklin, Scott 0.8662126003033708
Nay ID 1 st R Fulcher, Russ 0.5987336817593535
Nay FL 1 st R Gaetz, Matt 0.840860604072318
Nay WI 8 th R Gallagher, Mike 0.7048994680444134
Nay NY 2 nd R Garbarino, Andrew 0.8662126003033708
Nay CA 25 th R Garcia, Mike 0.44044645471520416
Nay OH 7 th R Gibbs, Bob 0.8407917863682044
Nay FL 26 th R Gimenez, Carlos 0.42351334980186206
Nay TX 1 st R Gohmert, Louie 0.7887137905377881
Nay TX 23 rd R Gonzales, Tony 0.8662126003033708
Nay VA 5 th R Good, Bob 0.5359222799529716
Nay TX 5 th R Gooden, Lance 0.6777854500096505
Nay AZ 4 th R Gosar, Paul 0.886320169308346
Nay LA 6 th R Graves, Garret 0.5669372045253873
Nay MO 6 th R Graves, Sam 0.5697128722582091
Nay TN 7 th R Green, Mark 0.6039589232665182
Nay GA 14 th R Greene, Marjorie 0.4532717906486504
Nay VA 9 th R Griffith, Morgan 0.6016875408719318
Nay WI 6 th R Grothman, Glenn 0.8295901801426934
Nay MS 3 rd R Guest, Michael 0.6438240822750401
Nay KY 2 nd R Guthrie, Brett 0.6483454251045558
Nay MN 1 st R Hagedorn, Jim 0.6519322312896396
Nay TN 1 st R Harshbarger, Diana 0.48490405976714174
Nay MO 4 th R Hartzler, Vicky 0.8370359423271361
Nay OK 1 st R Hern, Kevin 0.6802055329413259
Nay NM 2 nd R Herrell, Yvette 0.5881732307488563
Nay GA 10 th R Hice, Jody 0.8760074034832707
Nay LA 3 rd R Higgins, Clay 0.6553572179704149
Nay AR 2 nd R Hill, French 0.6358614953745291
Nay IA 1 st R Hinson, Ashley 0.5131043751862308
Nay IN 9 th R Hollingsworth, Trey 0.5068808753537032
Nay NC 8 th R Hudson, Richard 0.733196187150858
Nay MI 2 nd R Huizenga, Bill 0.675936595775309
Nay CA 50 th R Issa, Darrell 0.48443266239525373
Nay TX 13 th R Jackson, Ronny 0.5868341111838984
Nay NY 27 th R Jacobs, Chris 0.47552433795784044
Nay OH 6 th R Johnson, Bill 0.7454998859784082
Nay SD R Johnson, Dusty 0.5680159846812822
Nay LA 4 th R Johnson, Mike 0.726819982969011
Nay OH 4 th R Jordan, Jim 0.619215249264509
Nay OH 14 th R Joyce, David 0.6304554751040446
Nay PA 13 th R Joyce, John 0.8662126003033708
Nay PA 12 th R Keller, Fred 0.6746718235806202
Nay PA 16 th R Kelly, Mike 0.7333813921224133
Nay MS 1 st R Kelly, Trent 0.7500246949908017
Nay CA 39 th R Kim, Young 0.40086319811581794
Nay TN 8 th R Kustoff, David 0.6620818220993405
Nay IL 18 th R LaHood, Darin 0.6598449827749615
Nay CA 1 st R LaMalfa, Doug 0.8679041699991579
Nay KS 2 nd R LaTurner, Jake 0.8662126003033708
Nay CO 5 th R Lamborn, Doug 0.7900132659198319
Nay OH 5 th R Latta, Robert 0.7619243324565458
Nay AZ 8 th R Lesko, Debbie 0.8468605966561695
Nay MO 7 th R Long, Billy 0.6789672136948857
Nay GA 11 th R Loudermilk, Barry 0.7061774507960038
Nay OK 3 rd R Lucas, Frank 0.5843024151173652
Nay MO 3 rd R Luetkemeyer, Blaine 0.7090825052274843
Nay SC 1 st R Mace, Nancy 0.8662126003033708
Nay NY 11 th R Malliotakis, Nicole 0.42943773933811746
Nay KS 1 st R Mann, Tracey 0.5261547656597835
Nay KY 4 th R Massie, Thomas 0.5080273908959216
Nay FL 18 th R Mast, Brian 0.6810847117596049
Nay CA 23 rd R McCarthy, Kevin 0.41166625119795164
Nay TX 10 th R McCaul, Michael 0.6109570549372029
Nay MI 10 th R McClain, Lisa 0.4856720604454325
Nay CA 4 th R McClintock, Tom 0.6841537863562431
Nay NC 10 th R McHenry, Patrick 0.5079351764565189
Nay WV 1 st R McKinley, David 0.7123335103408338
Nay PA 9 th R Meuser, Daniel 0.6271061845538601
Nay WV 3 rd R Miller, Carol 0.5715889569988077
Nay IL 15 th R Miller, Mary 0.4781243191423068
Nay IA 2 nd R Miller-Meeks, Mariannette 0.445708099589308
Nay MI 4 th R Moolenaar, John 0.6555925936866294
Nay WV 2 nd R Mooney, Alexander 0.8722525679209001
Nay AL 2 nd R Moore, Barry 0.8662126003033708
Nay UT 1 st R Moore, Blake 0.8662126003033708
Nay OK 2 nd R Mullin, Markwayne 0.6721694127748847
Nay TX 22 nd R Nehls, Troy 0.8662126003033708
Nay SC 5 th R Norman, Ralph 1.0
Nay CA 22 nd R Nunes, Devin 0.4596832890831103
Nay CA 8 th R Obernolte, Jay 0.4138498309809208
Nay UT 4 th R Owens, Burgess 0.45950967627232653
Nay MS 4 th R Palazzo, Steven 0.6972067272966328
Nay AL 6 th R Palmer, Gary 0.6146566562483412
Nay IN 6 th R Pence, Greg 0.5397364478354741
Nay PA 10 th R Perry, Scott 0.8333360809643873
Nay TX 11 th R Pfluger, August 0.46504239593950936
Nay FL 8 th R Posey, Bill 0.8360482027854936
Nay NY 23 rd R Reed, Tom 0.5134933790991318
Nay PA 14 th R Reschenthaler, Guy 0.6919094876185904
Nay WA 5 th R Rodgers, Cathy 0.6603606784825787
Nay KY 5 th R Rogers, Hal 0.8662126003033708
Nay AL 3 rd R Rogers, Mike 0.6196751165445781
Nay TN 6 th R Rose, John 0.5584202263096405
Nay MT R Rosendale, Matthew 0.48195170932193965
Nay NC 7 th R Rouzer, David 0.8017824875504985
Nay TX 21 st R Roy, Chip 0.6221115417203281
Nay FL 4 th R Rutherford, John 0.7482344357293759
Nay FL 27 th R Salazar, Maria 0.4050922929610163
Nay LA 1 st R Scalise, Steve 0.548017813735097
Nay AZ 6 th R Schweikert, David 0.6725798706124553
Nay GA 8 th R Scott, Austin 0.6888959869567437
Nay TX 17 th R Sessions, Pete 0.6781355185621551
Nay ID 2 nd R Simpson, Mike 0.5089177201978973
Nay NE 3 rd R Smith, Adrian 0.6251981360861892
Nay NJ 4 th R Smith, Chris 0.5423687692427951
Nay MO 8 th R Smith, Jason 0.7032790849092192
Nay PA 11 th R Smucker, Lloyd 0.6489788334397769
Nay IN 5 th R Spartz, Victoria 0.8662126003033708
Nay MN 8 th R Stauber, Pete 0.6103342015463858
Nay CA 48 th R Steel, Michelle 0.4065810047199774
Nay NY 21 st R Stefanik, Elise 0.7335792951499216
Nay WI 1 st R Steil, Bryan 0.5288997908033987
Nay FL 17 th R Steube, Gregory 0.8318519763950785
Nay UT 2 nd R Stewart, Chris 0.6945304301751595
Nay OH 15 th R Stivers, Steve 0.6955151930742925
Nay TX 3 rd R Taylor, Van 0.5484564603966652
Nay PA 15 th R Thompson, Glenn 0.7000211251487869
Nay WI 7 th R Tiffany, Thomas 0.8662126003033708
Nay SC 4 th R Timmons, William 0.8662126003033708
Nay OH 10 th R Turner, Michael 0.640408987599875
Nay NJ 2 nd R Van Drew, Jefferson 0.579433772203863
Nay TX 24 th R Van Duyne, Beth 0.8662126003033708
Nay MO 2 nd R Wagner, Ann 0.7384801021608942
Nay MI 7 th R Walberg, Tim 0.6563673847354595
Nay IN 2 nd R Walorski, Jackie 0.708545502577325
Nay FL 6 th R Waltz, Michael 0.6536659473455874
Nay TX 14 th R Weber, Randy 0.9336321825052216
Nay OH 2 nd R Wenstrup, Brad 0.7118851882900127
Nay AR 4 th R Westerman, Bruce 0.7269619861149781
Nay TX 25 th R Williams, Roger 0.7361533049972442
Nay SC 2 nd R Wilson, Joe 0.7361997933188713
Nay VA 1 st R Wittman, Robert 0.7024096811679738
Nay AR 3 rd R Womack, Steve 0.6308926107410123
Nay TX 6 th R Wright, Ron 0.6888382597396406
Nay AK R Young, Don 0.5993622401407402
Nay NY 1 st R Zeldin, Lee 0.6033954129379381
No Vote TX 12 th R Granger, Kay 0.5027031185648231
No Vote MD 1 st R Harris, Andy 0.763412243508958
No Vote NC 3 rd R Murphy, Gregory 0.6048670533568058
No Vote FL 11 th R Webster, Daniel 0.6385139518072699

Statistically Notable Votes

Statistically notable votes are the votes that are most surprising, or least predictable, given how other members of each voter&rsquos party voted and other factors.

All Votes


Federal Impeachment: A Procedural History

The issue of impeachment—with regard to members of both the Executive and Judicial Branch—is of increasing interest to the American public and the United States Congress. Unfortunately, much of the history of federal impeachments remains shrouded in mystery.

It is true that over the years several secondary sources have come to be considered “definitive” compilations of all federal impeachment activities through their dates of publication. It goes without saying, that these sources quickly become outdated. What is not so widely known is that many of these sources suffer from three additional problems. First, several of them do not contain primary source citations or contain such citations for only a portion of the impeachments they list. Second, several of the primary source citations are erroneous. Third, some are not truly exhaustive for the periods they cover.

The National Legal Foundation is seeking to remedy these problems. However, the process is an on-going one. Most obviously, new impeachments and impeachment investigations will need to be added. In addition, there may be even more impeachment resolutions and investigations that we have not yet found. In a few cases, we have not yet verified secondary sources’ primary source citations. Furthermore, it is possible that errors may have crept into our primary source citations just has they did in the compilations of other researchers.

Therefore, this Background Briefing will be re-issued periodically. We request that anyone knowing of impeachment resolutions or investigations not listed in this Briefing and anyone finding any errors would contact us with this information. Each version of this Briefing will be dated and upon receipt of the latest version, all earlier editions should be discarded to avoid confusion.

This Briefing does not contain any information on memorials or petitions calling for impeachment or impeachment investigations unless they resulted in further action. Memorials and petitions are of a different nature than the information we are tracking. For example, just within recent months, Congress has received approximately 27,000 petitions calling for the impeachment of District Judge John Nixon and approximately 36,000 petitions calling for the impeachment of District Judge Stewart Dalzell.

The officials listed below have had impeachment resolutions offered against them in the House of Representatives. The procedural history and the final disposition of the resolution is also provided. Citations are to the official record of debates in Congress except in those cases in which we are still trying to verify information in secondary sources or in which we cite to other official government documents. The four official publications recording the full debates of Congress are usually much more helpful than the Journals of the Senate and House of Representatives. These publications are: Annals of Congress (1789-1824) Register of Debates (1824-1837) Congressional Globe (1833-1873) and The Congressional Record (1873-Present).

Impeachment Efforts Against Legislative Branch Officials

William Blount, Senator

On July 3, 1797, President John Adams sent a confidential communication to the House detailing purported misconduct by Senator Blount. A five-member Select Committee was appointed to examine the material presented by President Adams and report its recommendations to the House. 7 Annals of Cong. 440-41 (1797).

The Select Committee recommended Senator Blount be impeached and on July 6, 1797, a resolution to impeach the senator was introduced. Id. at 448. The resolution was adopted July 7, 1797, and the next day a Select Committee was appointed to investigate Senator Blount and draft articles of impeachment. Id. at 459, 463-64. On July 8, 1797, the Senate voted to expel Senator Blount. Id. at 465.

On December 4, 1797, the Select Committee reported the findings of its investigation to the House. 7 Annals of Cong. 672 (1797). On January 25, 1798, the Select Committee submitted five articles of impeachment against the former Senator. Id. at 919. The articles were debated and agreed to on January 29, 1798. Id. at 947, 957. Managers to prosecute the impeachment were appointed on January 30 and 31, 1798. Id. at 953, 957. The articles of impeachment were then referred to the Senate on February 7, 1798. Id. at 969.

On December 26, 1798, Blount’s defense counsel argued the former Senator could not be impeached because members of the Legislative Branch are not “civil officers” within the meaning of the Impeachment clause and, therefore, are not subject to impeachment. Furthermore, Blount no longer held office. 9 Annals of Cong. 2490 (1798). On January 14, 1799, based on the defense counsel’s argument, the Senate acquitted Blount. Id. at 2648.

Congress has never again initiated impeachment proceedings against any member of the Legislative Branch.

Impeachment Efforts Against Executive Branch Officials

John Tyler, President

On January 10, 1842, Mr. Botts introduced an impeachment resolution against President Tyler. The House refused to either adopt the resolution or refer it to a Select Committee for investigation. Cong. Globe, 27th Cong., 3rd Sess. 144-46 (1842).

Andrew Johnson, President

On January 7, 1867, Mr. Loan offered an impeachment resolution against President Johnson. The resolution was referred to the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 2nd Sess. 319 (1867). On that same day, two other resolutions were offered. Mr. Kelso offered an impeachment resolution. The disposition of the resolution was not concluded in the morning business so consideration was postponed. Id. at 320. Then Mr. Ashley offered the third resolution of the day. This one called upon the Judiciary Committee to investigate charges against President Johnson. This resolution was adopted. Id. at 320-21.

Mr. Kelso’s resolution to impeach was reconsidered by the House on January 14 and 28, 1867, before it was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further investigation on February 4, 1867. Id. at 443, 806-08, 991. On March 2, 1867, the Judiciary Committee informed the House that it would be unable to complete the investigation that session, but recommended the investigation continue in the next Congress. Id. at 1754-55.

On March 7, 1867, Mr. Ashley introduced a resolution to have the Judiciary Committee resume the investigation of President Johnson. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 1st Sess. 18 (1867). The resolution was adopted by the House. Id.at 25. The Judiciary Committee submitted its report recommending impeachment of the President on November 25, 1867. Id. at 791. Minority reports were also filed and a resolution was introduced discharging the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the matter. Id. at 792. The Committee’s recommendation was debated on December 7, 1867, but the House voted not to impeach. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2nd Sess. 68 (1867).

On February 21, 1868, Mr. Covode started the whole process over again by introducing another impeachment resolution against the President. This resolution was referred to the Committee on Reconstruction. Id. at 1329-30. The Committee on Reconstruction submitted its report recommending impeachment to the House on February 22, 1868. Id. at 1336. Debate on the matter concluded when the House adopted the impeachment resolution on February 24, 1868. Id. at 1336-69, 1382-1400. A Special Committee was then appointed to draft the articles of impeachment. Id. at 1402.

Ten articles were reported by the Special Committee on February 29, 1868, and nine were adopted by the House on March 2, 1868. Id. at 1542-43, 1616-18. Two additional articles, bringing the total to eleven, were adopted by the House on March 3, 1868. Id. at 1638-42. The Senate began the impeachment trial on March 5, 1868. Id. at 1671. On May 26, 1868, the Senate voted to acquit President Johnson on articles eleven, two, and three. The Senate then adjourned sine die. No further action was ever taken on the remaining articles. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2nd Sess. supplement, 412-415 (1868).

Henry A. Smythe, Collector, Port of New York

On March 22, 1867, three resolutions were introduced calling for various types of action against Henry Smythe. Mr. Hulburd introduced a resolution calling for the President to remove Smythe from office. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 1st Sess. 282 (1867). Mr. Stevens offered an impeachment resolution against Smythe and called upon the Committee on Public Expenditures to draft articles of impeachment. Id. Finally, Mr. Shellaberger introduced a resolution requesting the Committee on Public Expenditures investigate Smythe’s conduct. Id. at 284.

On March 23, 1867, the House resumed debate over these three resolutions. A different resolution was ultimately adopted which did not call for Smythe’s impeachment, but rather his immediate removal from office by the President. A copy of the resolution was sent to the President. Id. at 289-90.

William E. West, American Consul at Dublin

On December 2, 1867, Mr. Robinson introduced a resolution to investigate William West. Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2nd Sess. 3 (1867). The resolution was debated, then referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. Id. at 3-8.

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Schuyler Colfax, Vice President

Vice President Colfax’s name surfaced during witness testimony in a House “investigation of charges of bribery in influencing members of the House of Representatives.” Under this cloud of suspicion, on February 20, 1873, Mr. Wood introduced a resolution to investigate the Vice President’s conduct. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 3rd Sess. 1544 (1873). The House, however, refused to consider Mr. Wood’s resolution. Then a second resolution was introduced by Mr. Tyner, calling for a general investigation into the witness testimony to see if the conduct of any officer of the United States warranted impeachment. This resolution was adopted and referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 1545.

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

William Belknap, Secretary of War

On January 14, 1876, Mr. Morrison introduced a resolution calling for the Committee on Expenditures to investigate activities of several departments, including the War Department. The resolution was adopted. 4 Cong. Rec. 414 (1876). On March 2, 1876, the Committee on Expenditures submitted a report to the House recommending impeachment of Secretary Belknap. The committee report included an impeachment resolution. Id. at 1426.

On that same day, March 2, 1876, Secretary Belknap resigned from office and his resignation was accepted by the President. Id. at 1429. The House proceeded with its impeachment efforts by appointing the Judiciary Committee to draft articles of impeachment. On March 8, 1876, a resolution from the Judiciary Committee was introduced requesting the authority to gather more evidence against the former Secretary. Id. at 1564. The resolution was adopted. Id. at 1566. On April 3, 1876, the Judiciary Committee reported back five articles of impeachment which were subsequently adopted by the House. Id. at 2159, 2161.

On April 5, 1876, the Senate began consideration of the impeachment articles. Id. at 2215. The impeachment trial concluded on August 1, 1876, when the Senate voted to acquit the former Secretary on all five articles. 4 Cong. Rec. app. 342-57 (1876).

H. Snowden Marshall, U.S. District Attorney, Southern District of New York

On December 14, 1915, Mr. Buchanan offered impeachment charges against Marshall. The charges were referred to the Judiciary Committee. 53 Cong. Rec. 240 (1915). On January 11, 1916, after no action was taken, Mr. Buchanan introduced a resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to investigate Marshall. Id. at 913. However, after some debate over the proper procedure, Mr. Buchanan withdrew the resolution from consideration. Id. at 918.

On January 12, 1916, Mr. Buchanan again offered a resolution, H.R. Res. 90, to investigate Marshall. This time the resolution was adopted and referred to the Judiciary Committee for further action. Id. at 962-71.

On January 27, 1916, the House passed a resolution, H.R. Res. 110, granting the Judiciary Committee authority to subpoena witnesses and to use a Subcommittee. Id. at 1658-59. On January 31, 1916, a Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee was organized to take testimony. The Judiciary Committee reported its findings, H.R. Rep. No. 64-494, to the House on April 5, 1916. The Judiciary Committee recommended a Select Committee be appointed to further investigate Marshall. Mr. Kitchins offered a resolution, H.R. Res. 193, to adopt the Judiciary Committee’s recommendations. The resolution passed and the Select Committee was formed. Id. at 5540-41.

The Select Committee report was read into the record on April 14, 1916. Id. at 6135. The report found Marshall guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House and in contempt of the House of Representatives and recommended he be brought to the bar of the House to answer the charges. Id. at 6141.

On June 20, 1916, a resolution, H.R. Res. 268, was submitted which charged Marshall with violating the privileges of the House of Representatives and calling the Speaker to issue a warrant for Marshall’s arrest. Id. at 9638. The resolution was adopted. Id. at 9670. On June 22, 1916, the Speaker signed the warrant. Id. at 9792.

When Marshall was arrested by the Sergeant at Arms on June 26, 1916, he served the Sergeant at Arms with a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 10,371. Marshall’s writ eventually went to the United States Supreme Court where Chief Justice White issued the opinion of the court on April 23, 1917. The Court granted the writ and released Marshall from custody. Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1916).

The Judiciary Committee submitted its last report, H.R. Rep. 64-1077, concerning impeachment efforts against Marshall on August 4, 1916. The report was referred to the House calendar. Id. at 12,096.

No record of any further action against Marshall has been found in primary or secondary sources.

W. P. G. Harding, Governor, Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Paul M. Warburg, Vice Governor, FRB Frederick Delano, Adolph Miller, and Charles Hamlin, Members, FRB

On February 12, 1917, Mr. Lindbergh offered articles of impeachment against five members of the Federal Reserve Board. The articles were referred to the Judiciary Committee for investigation. 54 Cong. Rec. 3126 (1917). On March 3, 1917, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. 64-1628, finding insufficient evidence to support impeachment. The committee report was adopted. No further action was taken. Id. at 4953.

Harry M. Daugherty, Attorney General

On September 11, 1922, Mr. Keller introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 425, to investigate Attorney General Daugherty. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further action. 62 Cong. Rec. 12,346 (1922). On December 4, 1922, a resolution, H.R. Res. 461, was adopted authorizing the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings. 64 Cong. Rec. 18 (1922).

The Judiciary report, which found insufficient evidence to impeach, was submitted to the House and referred to the House calendar on January 10, 1923. Id. at 1536. On January 25, 1923, the Judiciary Committee report was debated and a resolution discharging the Judiciary Committee from further consideration of the matter was proposed. Id. at 2410-52. Mr. Thomas offered an amendment to the resolution that would have forced another investigation by a Special Committee appointed by the Speaker of the House. Id. at 2415. Mr. Thomas’ amendment failed. The resolution discharging the Judiciary Committee from further action was adopted. Id. at 2450-52. No further action was taken.

Clarence Chase, Collector of Customs, Port of El Paso, Texas

Chase was implicated in a Senate hearing before the Committee of Public Lands and Surveys as part of the Tea Pot Dome investigations. The Senate, on March 25, 1924, adopted a resolution, S. Res. 195, referring the matter to the House of Representatives for such proceedings as might be appropriate against Chase. 65 Cong. Rec. 4915 (1924). The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 4992. On March 26, 1924, Clarence Chase resigned from office, and no further action was taken by the House. Id. at 5009.

Fredrick Fenning, Commissioner, District of Columbia

On April 19, 1926, articles of impeachment against Commissioner Fenning were read on the floor of the House, and a resolution, H.R. Res. 228, to investigate the validity of the charges was adopted. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 67 Cong. Rec. 7753, 7814 (1926). On May 4, 1926, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 69-1075, recommending a complete investigation. 67 Cong. Rec. 8718 (1926). A resolution adopting the committee report was passed by the House on May 6, 1926. Id. at 8822-28.

On June 9, 1926, Mr. Rankin submitted a brief to the investigating committee supporting Fenning’s impeachment. Id. at 11,019. Then on June 16, 1926, after Fenning answered the charges, Mr. Rankin submitted a reply brief. Id.at 11,374.

Two committees were involved in the impeachment investigation of Fenning. A preliminary report of a Special Subcommittee of the Committee on the District of Columbia was submitted to the House on June 30, 1926. Id. at 12,397. Then on July 1, 1926, the final Judiciary Committee report, H.R. Rep. No. 69-1590, was submitted to the House and later referred to the House calendar. Id. at 12,593, 12,858.

No record of any further action against Commissioner Fenning has been found in primary or secondary sources.

Andrew W. Mellon, Treasury Secretary

On January 6, 1932, Mr. Patman introduced an impeachment resolution against Secretary Mellon. 75 Cong. Rec. 1400 (1932). The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 1401.

On February 13, 1932, the Judiciary Committee discontinued its investigation of Secretary Mellon due to his resignation from office. The Judiciary Committee neither recommended impeachment to the House nor drafted articles of impeachment against Secretary Mellon. Id. at 3850.

Herbert Hoover, President

On December 13, 1932, Mr. McFadden introduced an impeachment resolution against President Hoover. 76 Cong. Rec. 399 (1932). The resolution was tabled. Id. at 402.

On January 17, 1933, Mr. McFadden again introduced a resolution to impeach President Hoover. Id. at 1965. Again, the resolution was tabled. Id. at 1968.

William Woodin, Treasury Secretary Twenty-Four Other Officials

On May 23, 1933, Mr. McFadden introduced an impeachment resolution against twenty-five government officials associated with the Federal Reserve Board and government finance. These individuals included: William Woodin (Secretary of the Treasury) two former Treasury Secretaries (Andrew Mellon and Ogden Mills) J. F. T. O’Connor (Comptroller of Currency) John Pole (Former Comptroller of Currency) four members and three former members of the Federal Reserve Board twelve Federal Reserve Agents and one former Federal Reserve Agent. 77 Cong. Rec. 4055 (1933).

Mr. Byrns raised a constitutional question of proper subject matter, since many of the individuals named in the resolution no longer held office. The resolution and the constitutional question were referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 4058.

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Francis Perkins, Labor Secretary James Houghteling, Immigration and Naturalization Commissioner Gerard Reilly, Solicitor of the Department of Labor

On January 24, 1939, Mr. Thomas offered an impeachment resolution against these three federal officials. 84 Cong. Rec. 702 (1939). The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 711.

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Harry Truman, President

On April 23, 1952, Mr. Bender introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 607, against President Truman. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 98 Cong. Rec. 4325 (1952).

On April 28, 1952, Mr. Schafer introduced a second impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 614, against President Truman. Id. at 4518. This resolution was also referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 4539.

On June 17, 1952, after becoming frustrated at the inaction on his impeachment resolution, Mr. Shafer filed a discharge petition to force his resolution, H.R. Res. 614, to be reported out of the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 7424. The petition failed to gather the necessary signatures. Lewis Deschler, Precedents of the U. S. House of Representatives, H.R. Doc. No. 94-661, at 603 (1977).

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Spiro Agnew, Vice President

On September 15, 1973, Spiro Agnew, in a letter to the House of Representatives, requested an official investigation into the charges which had been made against him during an investigation by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland. 119 Cong. Rec. 31,368 (1973).

On September 26, 1973, the House took up debate on Vice President Agnew’s request. Id. at 31,453, 31,478, 31,480, 31,490, 31,492, 31,503. Mr. Findley offered a resolution, H.R. Res. 569, appointing a Select Committee to investigate the Vice President. The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee. Id. at 31,506.

On October 1, 1973, when it appeared no action would be taken on his previous resolution, Mr. Findley offered a resolution, H.R. Res. 572, directing the Attorney General to provide the House with information regarding the misconduct of Vice President Agnew. This resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 32,095-96, 32,131.

Following Vice President Agnew’s resignation, on October 10, 1973, by unanimous consent of the House, the Judiciary Committee was discharged from further investigation under House Resolution 572, and the resolution was tabled. Id. at 33,687.

Richard Nixon, President

On May 9, 1972, Mr. Ryan submitted a resolution, H.R. Res. 975, to impeach President Nixon. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 118 Cong. Rec. 16,350 (1972). On May 10, 1972, Mr. Conyers introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 976, against President Nixon. This resolution was also referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 16,663. On May 18, 1972, Mr. Conyers introduced his second resolution, H.R. Res. 989, calling for President Nixon’s impeachment. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 18,078.

The next impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 513, was introduced on July 31, 1973, by Mr. Drinan. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 119 Cong. Rec. 27,062 (1973).

On October 23, 1973, a landslide of resolutions calling for impeachment, impeachment investigations, and the appointment of a special prosecutor were introduced against President Nixon. 119 Cong. Rec. 34,871-73 (1973). The introduction of these resolutions continued for several days. Generally, resolutions calling for impeachment or the approval of a special prosecutor were referred to the Judiciary Committee, while those calling for an impeachment investigation were referred to the Rules Committee. Id. Et passim.

On February 6, 1974, the House passed a resolution, H.R. Res. 803, giving the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate impeachment charges against President Nixon. 120 Cong. Rec. 2349-50, 2362-63 (1974).

On August 20, 1974, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 93-1305, to the House. The report recommended impeachment and included three articles for that purpose. 120 Cong. Rec. 29,219-361 (1974). The Committee had initially considered five articles of impeachment, but only three gained majority support. Id. at 29,305-06.

On that same day, August 20, 1974, the House passed a resolution, H.R. Res. 1333, formally receiving the committee report and taking note of Nixon’s resignation of April 9, 1974. Id. at 29,361-62. No further action was taken.

Richard Helms, Ambassador to Iran

On July 29, 1975, Mr. Drinan introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 647, against Ambassador Helms. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 121 Cong. Rec. 25,578, 25,599 (1975).

Mr. Drinan introduced another impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 1105, against Ambassador Helms on March 24, 1976. This resolution was also sent to the Judiciary Committee. 122 Cong. Rec. 7830 (1976).

No other record regarding the disposition of these resolutions has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, they died in committee.

Andrew Young, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

On October 3, 1977, Mr. McDonald introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 805, against Ambassador Young. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee for action. 123 Cong. Rec. 32,055 (1977).

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Mr. McDonald waited until July 13, 1978, to offer a second impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 1267, against Ambassador Young. This time the resolution was tabled on the House floor. 124 Cong. Rec. 20,607-09 (1978).

Griffin Bell, Attorney General of the United States

On February 6, 1978, a resolution, H.R. Res. 1002, was introduced authorizing Judiciary Committee to investigate Attorney General Bell. The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee. 124 Cong. Rec. 2428 (1978). Another resolution calling for an investigation, H.R. Res. 1025, was introduced by Mr. Crane on February 15, 1978. This resolution was also referred to the Rules Committee. Id. at 3486.

No other record regarding the disposition of these resolutions has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, they died in committee.

Paul Volcker, Chairman Federal Reserve Board Federal Open Market Commission Members

According to Elizabeth Bazan, Paul Volcker, and several members of the Federal Open Market Commission had impeachment resolutions first introduced against them in 1983. Elizabeth B. Bazan, Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, Procedure, and Practice 11 (Congressional Research Service, 1995).

On March 7, 1985, Mr. Gonzalez introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 101, against Paul Volcker and ten other members of the Federal Open Market Commission. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 131 Cong. Rec. 5047 (1985).

Additionally, on March 7, 1985, Mr. Gonzalez introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 102, against Paul Volcker alone. This resolution was also referred to the Judiciary Committee. 131 Cong. Rec. 5047 (1985).

The impeachment resolutions against Paul Volcker and Federal Open Market Commission members in 1983 and 1985, were apparently referred by the Judiciary Committee to its Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law. Bazan, at 11.

No other record regarding the disposition of these resolutions has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, they died in committee.

Ronald Reagan, President

According to Elizabeth Bazan, the first attempt to impeach President Reagan came in 1983. Bazan, at 11.

On March 5, 1987, Mr. Gonzalez introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 111, to impeach President Reagan. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 133 Cong. Rec. 4899-900, 4918 (1987).

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

George Bush, President

According to Elizabeth Bazan, there were two impeachment resolutions introduced against President Bush in 1991. Bazan, at 11. Only one of these resolutions was recorded.

On January 16, 1991, Mr. Gonzalez introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 34, to impeach President Bush. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 137 Cong. Rec. 1736 (1991).

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

William Jefferson Clinton, President

On November 5, 1997, Mr. Barr introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 304, calling for the investigation of President Clinton. The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee for further action. 143 Cong. Rec. 10,105 (1997).

Impeachment Efforts Against Judicial Branch Members

George Turner, Territorial Judge, Northwest Territory

On May 10, 1796, the House received a report from the Attorney General on the conduct of Judge Turner. The report was referred to a Select Committee for further action. 5 Annals of Cong. 1338 (1796).

On February 16, 1797, Judge Turner requested that a hearing on any potential charges be conducted while he was in town. His request was not granted. 6 Annals of Cong. 2166 (1797). Then on February 27, 1797, Mr. Bradbury submitted the Select Committee report and a resolution recommending a hearing be held in the Northwest Territory. This resolution was tabled by the House. Id. at 2320.

No record of any further action against Judge Turner has been found in primary or secondary sources.

John Pickering, U.S. District Judge, District of New Hampshire

On February 4, 1803, the House received a report from President Jefferson regarding the conduct of Judge Pickering. 12 Annals of Cong. 460 (1803). A Select Committee was appointed to investigate the matter and submitted its report to the House on February 18, 1803. Id. at 544. On March 2, 1803, the House passed a resolution impeaching Judge Pickering. Id. at 641.

On October 20, 1803, the House appointed a Select Committee to draft articles of impeachment. 13 Annals of Cong. 380 (1803). The Select Committee submitted four articles of impeachment to the House on December 27, 1803. Id. at 790. On December 30, 1803, the articles were adopted. Id. at 795.

The Senate began the impeachment trial against Judge Pickering on January 4, 1804. Id. at 319. On March 12, 1804, the Senate convicted Judge Pickering on all four articles and removed him from office. Id. at 367-68.

Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court

On January 5, 1804, a resolution was introduced appointing a Select Committee to investigate Justice Chase. 13 Annals of Cong. 806 (1804). The resolution was approved on January 7, 1804. Id. at 874-76. The Select Committee recommended impeachment in a report submitted to the House on March 6, 1804. Id. at 1093. On March 13, 1804, the report was approved and a Select Committee was appointed to draft the impeachment articles. Id. at 1182. The House adopted the Select Committee’s articles on March 26, 1804. Id. at 1237.

The articles were then referred to the Senate and the impeachment trial began. On March 1, 1805, the Senate acquitted Justice Chase of all articles. 14 Annals of Cong. 669 (1805).

Richard Peters, U.S. District Judge, District of Pennsylvania

On January 6, 1804, Judge Peters was added, by amendment, to a resolution calling for the investigation of Justice Chase. 13 Annals of Cong. 824 (1804). The resolution was adopted on January 7, 1804. Id. at 876.

The Select Committee, appointed to conduct the investigation, submitted its report to the House on March 6, 1804. Id. at 1093. The Select Committee report, exonerating Judge Peters of any wrongdoing, was adopted by the House on March 12, 1804. Id. at 1171, 1181.

Harry Innis, U.S. District Judge, District of Kentucky

On March 21, 1808, a resolution to investigate Judge Innis was introduced. The resolution was tabled. 18 Annals of Cong. 1858, 1860 (1808). On March 31, 1808, the resolution was reconsidered and adopted by the House. Id.at 1886.

A Select Committee was appointed to conduct the investigation. That Select Committee submitted its report, absolving Judge Innis of all wrongdoing, to the House on April 19, 1808. Id. at 2197-98. On April 20, 1804, the report was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Id. at 2247-50.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. It is likely no action was taken before the end of the Congressional session.

Peter Bruin, Presiding Judge, Mississippi Territory

On April 9, 1808, a resolution was introduced calling for the appointment of a Special Committee to prepare articles of impeachment against Judge Bruin. The resolution was tabled. 18 Annals of Cong. 2068-70 (1808). On April 18, 1808, the resolution was reconsidered and a Special Committee was appointed to investigate the Judge. Id. at 2189.

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources.

Harry Toulmin, Superior Court Judge, Washington District of Mississippi Territory

On December 19, 1811, as a result of an accusatory letter from Judge Toulmin’s district, a resolution was introduced to investigate the Judge’s conduct. The resolution was tabled. 23 Annals of Cong. 559 (1811). On December 21, 1811, the resolution was withdrawn, and the original accusatory letter of December 16, 1811, was referred to a Select Committee for further inquiry. Id. at 567.

On January 14, 1812, an attempt to disband the investigating Select Committee was voted down. Id. at 764-65. The Select Committee submitted a report absolving Judge Toulmin on May 22, 1812. The report was adopted by the House. 24 Annals of Cong. 1436 (1812).

Then on January 2, 1817, another letter was read before the House outlining charges of misconduct against Judge Toulmin. The letter was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further investigation. 30 Annals of Cong. 409 (1817). On February 27, 1817, the Judiciary Committee issued a report finding no evidence to support impeachment. The report was adopted by the House, and the Judiciary Committee was disbanded. Id. at 1038-39.

William P. Van Ness, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York

On April 10, 1818, a resolution was introduced requesting that a Special Committee be appointed to investigate Judge Van Ness. The resolution was adopted by the House. 32 Annals of Cong. 1715 (1818). On February 17, 1819, the Special Committee submitted a report to the House recommending no action be taken against Judge Van Ness. 34 Annals of Cong. 1217-18 (1819).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the Congressional session.

Mathias B. Tallmadge, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of New York

On April 10, 1818, Judge Tallmadge was added to a resolution already adopted to investigate Judge William Van Ness. The House agreed to this amendment and appointed a Select Committee to conduct the investigation. 32 Annals of Cong. 1716 (1818). On February 17, 1819, the Select Committee submitted a report to the House recommending no action be taken against Judge Tallmadge. Id. at 1222.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the Congressional Session.

William Stevens, U.S. District Judge, District of Georgia

On April 10, 1818, a Special Committee was appointed to investigate Judge Stevens. 32 Annals of Cong. 1716 (1818). Judge Stevens resigned during the House investigation, and on November 24, 1818, the Special Committee was disbanded. 33 Annals of Cong. 313 (1818).

Charles Tait, U.S. District Judge, District of Alabama

On March 6, 1822, a complaint against Judge Tait was received by the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee. 38 Annals of Cong. 1213 (1822). A second complaint was presented on December 27, 1822. 40 Annals of Cong. 463-64 (1822). Mr. Moore then proposed a resolution referring the complaint to the Judiciary Committee for further action. Id. at 465. The resolution was adopted. Id. at 468. On January 28, 1823, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report exonerating Judge Tait. Id. at 715.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the Congressional Session.

On January 26, 1824, the House received another complaint against Judge Tait. This complaint was tabled. 41 Annals of Cong. 1202 (1824).

No record of any further action against Judge Tait has been found in primary or secondary sources.

Joseph L. Smith, Supreme Court Judge, Territory of Florida

On February 3, 1825, Mr. Call introduced a resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to investigate Judge Smith. The resolution was adopted. Reg. of Debates, 18th Cong., 2nd Sess. 438-40 (1825).

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Buckner Thruston, U.S. Circuit Court Judge, District of Columbia

John Ness sent a memorial to Congress complaining of Judge Thruston’s official conduct. The memorial was referred to the Judiciary Committee for investigation. On February 28, 1825, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report to the House. The report recommended no action be taken against the Judge. H.R. Rep. No. 18-85 (1825).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

On January 30, 1837, William Brent and Richard Coxe sent a memorial to Congress requesting an investigation of Judge Thruston. The memorial was referred to the Judiciary Committee. On March 3, 1837, the Judiciary Committee submitted its final report to the House. The report contained witness testimony, but no recommendation for or against impeachment. H.R. Rep. No. 24-327 (1837).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

Alfred Conkling, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of New York

Martha Bradstreet sent a petition to Congress requesting an investigation of Judge Conkling. The petition was referred to the Judiciary Committee to conduct the investigation. On April 3, 1830, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report to the House. The report recommended no action be taken against Judge Conkling. H.R. Rep. No. 21-342 (1830).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

A second set of complaints from citizens of New York was submitted to Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee for investigation. On March 3, 1841, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report to the House. The report recommended no action be taken against Judge Conkling. H.R. Rep. No. 26-244 (1841).

No other record has been found in primary or secondary sources regarding the disposition of this report. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

On August 8, 1848, a third memorial requesting an investigation was sent to Congress by Anson Little. The memorial was presented to the House on January 3, 1849, and referred to the Judiciary Committee for further investigation. On February 13, 1849, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report to the House. The report recommended a full investigation of Judge Conkling be conducted by the next Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 30-103 (1849).

No other record has been found in primary or secondary sources regarding the disposition of this report. Presumably, no action was taken by the next Congress.

James H. Peck, U.S. District Judge, District of Missouri

On March 23, 1830, Mr. Buchanon presented a report from the Judiciary Committee recommending that Judge Peck be impeached. Reg. of Debates, 21st Cong., 1st Sess. 637 (1830). On April 21, 1830, debate on the Judiciary Committee report began in the House. Id. at 810. An impeachment resolution was adopted on April 24, 1830. Id. at 818-819.

On April 24, 1830, a Select Committee was formed to draft the articles of impeachment. Id. at 819. On April 29, 1830, the Select Committee submitted impeachment articles to the House. Id. at 863. On May 1, 1830, the House voted to adopt the articles as presented. Id. at 868-69. That same day, five managers were appointed to prosecute the impeachment before the Senate. Id. at 869.

On December 13, 1830, the Senate began the impeachment trial. Reg. of Debates, 21st Cong., 2nd Sess. 3-4 (1839). The trial continued through January 31, 1831, when the Senate voted to acquit Judge Peck. Id. at 45.

Benjamin Johnson, Superior Court Judge, Arkansas Territory

William Cummins sent a memorial to Congress requesting an investigation of Judge Johnson. The memorial was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further action. On February 8, 1833, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report to the House. The report found no evidence to support impeachment. The Judiciary Committee also concluded that a territorial judge was not a civil officer subject to impeachment. The Judiciary Committee recommended no further action be taken against Judge Johnson. H.R. Rep. No. 22-88 (1833).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

Philip K. Lawrence, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of Louisiana

On January 8, 1839, the House received a petition from Duncan Hennan requesting an investigation of Judge Lawrence. The petition was referred to a Select Committee for further action. H.R. Doc. No. 25-63 (1839). On February 11, 1839, the Select Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 272. The report recommended Judge Lawrence be impeached. Cong. Globe, 25th Cong., 3rd Sess. 187 (1839).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

John C. Watrous, U.S. District Judge, State of Texas

On Feb. 13, 1851, a memorial requesting an investigation of Judge Watrous was presented to Congress. The memorial was referred to the Judiciary Committee. On March 3, 1851, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report to the House. The report recommended the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration because insufficient time remained in the Congressional Session to complete the investigation. H.R. Rep. No. 31-70, at 1 (1851).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

A second memorial containing charges against Judge Watrous was sent to the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee. On February 28, 1853, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report to the House. The report recommended against impeaching the Judge.

H.R. Rep. No. 32-7, at 687 (1853).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the Congressional Session.

Another investigation of Judge Watrous was conducted in the 34th Congress. On February 9, 1857, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report recommending Judge Watrous be impeached. Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3rd Sess. 627 (1857). However, no further action was taken until January 15, 1858, when a resolution was introduced allowing the Judiciary Committee to further investigate the matter by calling witnesses. The resolution was adopted by the House. Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 1st Sess. 304 (1858).

On December 9, 1858, the Judiciary Committee submitted two reports to the House. The majority report recommended Judge Watrous be impeached. The minority, however, found insufficient evidence to warrant impeachment. Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 2nd Sess. 12 (1858). On December 15, 1858, the House adopted the minority report, finding insufficient evidence to justify impeachment. Id. at 102.

Thomas Irwin, U.S. District Judge, Western District of Pennsylvania

During the 35th Congress, 2nd Session, the Judiciary Committee conducted an investigation of Judge Irwin. On January 13, 1859, a resolution authorizing witnesses to be called was adopted by the House. Cong. Globe, 35th Cong., 2nd Sess. 360 (1859). On January 28, 1859, the Judiciary Committee informed the House that Judge Irwin had resigned, and the House voted to discharge the Judiciary Committee from further investigation. Id. at 656.

West H. Humphreys, U.S. District Judge, Eastern, Middle and Western Districts of Tennessee

On March 4, 1862, Mr. Bingham introduced a report from the Judiciary Committee recommending impeachment of Judge Humphreys. The report was recommitted to the Judiciary Committee. Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1062 (1862). On May 6, 1862, the report was resubmitted to the House. This time the House adopted the committee report and impeached the Judge. Id. at 1966.

On May 14, 1862, the House appointed a Select Committee to draft the articles of impeachment, and on May 19th the articles were adopted. Id. at 2134, 2205. The Senate began the impeachment trial on June 26, 1862, and later that day voted to convict and remove Judge Humphreys from office. Id. at 2942-53.

Mark H. Delahay, U.S. District Judge, District of Kansas

On February 28, 1873, Mr. Butler introduced a resolution to impeach Judge Delahay. The resolution was immediately adopted by the House. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 3rd Sess. 1899-1900 (1873). On March 3, 1873, the Senate announced it was ready to receive the articles of impeachment. Id. at 2108. The Special Committee appointed to present the impeachment charges against the Judge then reported to the Senate and announced specific articles of impeachment would follow. Id. at 2122.

No record of any further action against Judge Delahay could be found in primary sources. The Judge apparently resigned after the House began impeachment proceedings, as evidenced by President Grant appointing another judge to his post on March 10, 1874. 3 Hinds’ Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States § 2505, at 1010 (Government Printing Office, 1907).

Charles T. Sherman, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Ohio

On February 22, 1873, Mr. Roberts introduced a resolution to investigate Judge Sherman. The resolution was adopted and referred to the Judiciary Committee. Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 3rd Sess. 1628 (1873). On March 3, 1873, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report recommending further investigation of Judge Sherman in the next Congress, and asking to be discharged from further consideration of the matter. Id. at 2122. Mr. Potter attempted to persuade the House to consider an impeachment resolution instead of the committee report, but his attempt failed. Id. at 2127. The committee report was adopted by the House.

No record of any further action against Sherman has been found in primary or secondary sources.

Richard Busteed, U.S. District Judge, District of Alabama

On December 15, 1873, Mr. E. R. Hoar introduced a resolution to investigate Judge Busteed’s conduct. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 1 Cong. Rec. 209 (1873). On December 17, 1873, the House passed a resolution granting subpoena power to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 266. On June 20, 1874, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report and resolutions for impeachment to the House. Id. at 5316.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

On January 7, 1875, sometime after Judge Busteed’s resignation, the House Judiciary Committee introduced a resolution calling for the Judge’s impeachment. The resolution did not pass. 3 Cong. Rec. 324-26 (1875).

Edward Durell, U.S. District Judge, District of Louisiana

On December 17, 1873, Mr. Wilson introduced a resolution to investigate Judge Durell. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 2 Cong. Rec. 266 (1873).

On January 7, 1875, following Judge Durell’s resignation, Mr. Wilson made a motion to table the resolution and relieve the Judiciary Committee of its investigation. His motion carried. 3 Cong. Rec. 319 (1875).

William F. Story, U.S. District Judge, Western District of Arkansas

On February 26, 1874, Mr. Blaine introduced charges against Judge Story. These charges were referred to the Judiciary Committee. 1 Cong. Rec. 1825 (1874).

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Andrew Wylie, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the District of Columbia

No record of any impeachment investigation against Judge Wylie has been found in primary sources. However, according to Joseph Borkin, Judge Wylie was investigated by the House during the 44th Congress, 1st Session. Joseph Borkin, The Corrupt Judge: An Inquiry into Bribery and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Federal Courts 258 (Clarkson N. Potter, 1962).

D. C. Humphreys, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the District of Columbia

No record of any impeachment investigation against Judge Humphreys has been found in primary sources. However, according to Joseph Borkin, Judge Humphreys was investigated by the House during the 44th Congress, 1st Session. Id.

Henry W. Blodgett, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of West Virginia

On January 7, 1879, Mr. Harrison offered a resolution to investigate Judge Blodgett. 8 Cong. Rec. 354 (1879). The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 355.

On March 3, 1879, the Judiciary Committee reported back to the House, recommending no impeachment proceedings against Judge Blodgett. Id. at 2388, 2390-95. A resolution to table actions against the Judge was introduced and adopted by the House. Id. at 2395.

Aleck Boarman, U.S. District Judge, Western District of Louisiana

On April 1, 1890, a resolution to impeach Judge Boarman was sent to the Judiciary Committee. No primary record of this resolution could be found. However, on February 17, 1891, the Judiciary Committee referred to this initial resolution when it introduced an impeachment resolution against the Judge. The House printed and recommitted the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. 22 Cong. Rec. 2797 (1890).

On February 19, 1891, the Judiciary Committee reintroduced a resolution to impeach Judge Boarman. The House agreed to consider the resolution on February 20th at 2:00 p.m. Id. at 2937. No such action was taken. So, on February 28, 1891, the resolution was again called up for consideration. The vote on the resolution was postponed until the evening session of the House. Id. at 3597. Again, the intended action did not occur.

On January 30, 1892, the old impeachment resolution was tabled and a new resolution calling for further investigation of Judge Boarman was adopted and referred to the Judiciary Committee. 23 Cong. Rec. 689 (1892). The Judiciary Committee reported back to the House on June 1, 1892. A resolution was passed discharging the Judiciary Committee from further action against the Judge, and the committee report and accompanying evidence was tabled. Id. at 4908.

James G. Jenkins, U.S. Circuit Court Judge, Seventh Circuit

On February 5, 1894, Mr. McGann introduced a resolution to investigate Judge Jenkins. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 26 Cong. Rec. 1922 (1894). On March 2, 1894, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report recommending an investigation of the Judge. Id. at 2533-34. On March 6, 1894, Mr. Boatner introduced a resolution to adopt the committee report and to begin the investigation. The resolution was adopted by the House. Id. at 2629.

On June 8, 1894, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report of the investigation to the House. The report was referred to the House calendar. Id. at 5994

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

Augustus Ricks, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Ohio

The Central Labor Union of Cleveland, Ohio, sent a memorial to Congress charging Judge Ricks with professional misconduct. The memorial was referred to the Judiciary Committee for a preliminary investigation of the charges. On August 8, 1894, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report recommending a full investigation of Judge Ricks be conducted. H.R. Rep. No. 53-1393 (1894).

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

On January 7, 1895, Mr. Johnson offered a resolution calling for an investigation into charges against Judge Ricks. The resolution was adopted and referred to the Judiciary Committee. 27 Cong. Rec. 709 (1895). The Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment and reported its findings to the House on January 25, 1895. The committee report was referred to the House calendar and ordered printed. Id. at 1360.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

Charles H. Swayne, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Florida

On December 10, 1903, Mr. Lamar presented a memorial from the Florida legislature requesting an investigation of Judge Swayne. 38 Cong. Rec. 95 (1903). The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 103. On March 25, 1904, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 1905, and a resolution, H.R. Res. 136, recommending impeachment of the Judge. Id. at 3732. On that same day, Mr. Palmer introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 274, against Judge Swayne. Mr. Palmer’s resolution was referred to the House calendar. Id. at 3733. Then on April 7, 1904, Mr. Palmer introduced a resolution to postpone consideration of House Resolution 274 until December 13, 1904, so the Judiciary Committee could further investigate Judge Swayne. The resolution was adopted. Id. at 4431-32.

On December 9, 1904, the Judiciary Committee again submitted a report recommending impeachment of Judge Swayne. The report and impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 274, were referred to the House calendar. 39 Cong. Rec. 114-15 (1904). On December 13, 1904, the impeachment resolution was considered by the House. Id. at 214. The resolution was finally adopted, and a Select Committee was appointed to draft the articles of impeachment. Id. at 248-49.

On January 10, 1905, the Select Committee reported twelve articles of impeachment to the House. Id. at 665-67. Debate on these articles began on January 12, 1905. Id. at 754. All twelve articles were finally adopted on January 18, 1905. Id. at 1055-58. The impeachment trial began in the Senate on January 24, 1905. Id. at 1281. It concluded on February 27, 1905, when the Senate voted to acquit Judge Swayne of all charges. Id. at 3468-72.

Lebbus R. Wilfley, Judge of the U.S. Court for China

On February 20, 1908, Mr. Waldo introduced articles of impeachment against Wilfley and proposed a resolution, H.R. Res. 257, to investigate the charges. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 42 Cong. Rec. 2269 (1908).

On May 8, 1908, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 60-1626, to the House recommending against impeachment. Id. at 5965.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

Cornelius H. Hanford, U.S. Circuit Judge, Western District of Washington

On June 7, 1912, Mr. Berger introduced a resolution to investigate Judge Hanford. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 48 Cong. Rec. 7799 (1912). The Judiciary Committee reported back to the House, H.R. Rep. No. 62- 880, on June 13, 1912, and recommended the investigation proceed. The report was adopted. Id. at 8068-69.

The Judiciary Committee appointed a Subcommittee to conduct the investigation. On July 22, 1912, during the investigation, Judge Hanford tendered his resignation, and it was accepted. Id. at 10,308. The Subcommittee’s findings were submitted to the Judiciary Committee and a final committee report was drafted. This report, submitted to the House on August 6, 1912, recommended no further action against the former Judge. Id. at 10,308. In conjunction with this report, Mr. Clayton introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 672, discharging the Judiciary Committee from any further action against Judge Hanford. The resolution was adopted by the House. Id. at 10,308-09.

Robert Archbald, U.S. Circuit Judge, Third Circuit, Judge of U.S. Commerce Court

On April 23, 1912, Mr. Norris introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 511, to investigate Judge Archbald and requested any available information from the Justice Department be made available to the investigating committee. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 48 Cong. Rec. 5242 (1912). Two days later, on April 25, 1912, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 62-601, recommending the House adopt Mr. Norris’ resolution. The resolution was adopted. Id. at 5346.

On July 8, 1912, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report on its investigation of Judge Archbald, which included an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 524, and thirteen articles of impeachment. Id. at 8697-702. On July 11, 1912, the resolution and the articles of impeachment were debated, then adopted by the House. Id. at 8934.

On July 13, 1912, the House passed a resolution, H.R. Res. 628, announcing the impeachment of Judge Archbald and the selection of managers to prosecute the case before the Senate. Id. at 8989. The Senate impeachment trial began on July 16, 1912. Id. at 9117. It continued until January 13, 1913, when the Senate voted on the articles. Judge Archbald was removed from office after being found guilty of articles I, III, IV, V, and XIII. 49 Cong. Rec. 1438-48 (1913).

Emory Speer, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Georgia

On August 26, 1913, Mr. Clayton offered a resolution, H.R. Res. 234, to investigate Judge Speer. 50 Cong. Rec. 3777 (1913). The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee. Id. at 3795. However, following an objection from the floor, the resolution was held over for consideration until August 27, 1913, at which time it was amended and adopted. Id. at 3825.

A Select Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee conducted the investigation. On October 2, 1914, after reviewing the Subcommittee’s findings, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 63-1176, to the House. The report was referred to the House calendar. 51 Cong. Rec. 16,097 (1914). The report, which recommended no further action be taken against Judge Speer, was considered and agreed to by the House on October 21, 1914. Id. at 16,860.

Daniel Thew Wright, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the District of Columbia

On March 21, 1914, Mr. Park introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 446, against Judge Wright. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 51 Cong. Rec. 5238 (1914). On April 10, 1914, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 63-514, to the House. The report recommended further investigation and authorized the Judiciary Committee to use Subcommittees as needed. The report was adopted and referred to the Judiciary Committee for further action. Id. at 6559-60.

On March 3, 1915, the House agreed with the Judiciary Committee’s final report H.R. Rep. No. 63-1191, recommending no further action, and discharged the Judiciary Committee from any further investigation of Judge Wright. 52 Cong. Rec. 5485 (1915).

Alston G. Dayton, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of West Virginia

On May 11, 1914, Mr. Neely introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 512, calling for the investigation of Judge Dayton. The resolution was sent to the Rules Committee. 51 Cong. Rec. 8417 (1914). On June 12, 1914, after no further action was taken, Mr. Neely introduced a second resolution, H.R. Res. 541, to investigate impeachment charges against the Judge. This resolution was also sent to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 10,327-28.

On February 9, 1915, the report, H.R. Rep. No. 63-1381, of a Select Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was considered by the House. The House followed the report’s recommendation and adopted a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate the Judge. 52 Cong. Rec. 3447-48 (1915). The Judiciary Committee then submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 63-1490, to the House on March 3, 1915. The report, recommending no further action against Judge Dayton, was adopted. Id. at 5452-53.

Kennesaw Mountain Landis, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Div.

On February 2, 1921, Mr. Welty introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 665, to investigate the conduct of Judge Landis. The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee. 60 Cong. Rec. 2478 (1921). On February 14, 1921, Mr. Welty introduced actual impeachment charges against Judge Landis. These charges were referred to the House Judiciary Committee for investigation. Id. at 3143.

On March 2, 1921, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No 66-1407, to the House, and it was referred to the House calendar. Id. at 4359. The report recommended a complete investigation be undertaken by the 67th Congress.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the Congressional Session. However, on October 17, 1921, Judge Landis was condemned for his actions in a letter from the American Bar Association. This condemnation letter was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 61 Cong. Rec. 6357 (1921).

William E. Baker, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of West Virginia

On May 22, 1924, a resolution, H.R. Res. 325, to investigate Judge Baker was introduced. Some time earlier the Judiciary Committee had received information concerning misconduct by Judge Baker, and appointed a Subcommittee to review the material. After this review, the Subcommittee recommended a full-scale investigation. The resolution was adopted by the House and referred to the Judiciary Committee for further action. 65 Cong. Rec. 9239-40 (1924).

A Select Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was given charge of the investigation. (There is record of the Select Subcommittee obtaining funding for a stenographer on June 7, 1924. Id. at 11,252-53.) The final Judiciary Committee report, H.R. Rep. No. 68-1443, recommended against impeaching Judge Baker. The report by Mr. Dwyer was referred to the House Calendar on February 10, 1925. 66 Cong. Rec. 3471 (1925).

No other record concerning the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

George W. English, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of Illinois

On January 13, 1925, Mr. Hawes introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 402, requesting the Judiciary Committee conduct an investigation of Judge English. The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee. 66 Cong. Rec. 1790 (1925). Then on February 3, 1925, Mr. Snell made a motion to refer House Resolution 402 from the Rules Committee to the Judiciary Committee. The motion carried. Id. at 2940.

On February 10, 1925, Mr. Graham introduced a joint resolution, H.R.J. Res. 347, calling for an investigation of Judge English. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 3472. The resolution was signed by the President on March 4, 1925. Id. at 5531. A Special Committee, consisting of members of the House Judiciary Committee, was then appointed to conduct the investigation. On December 19, 1925, the Special Committee submitted its report. The report was subsequently referred to the Judiciary Committee, which continued the investigation. Judge English testified before the Judiciary Committee on January 12, 1926. See H.R. Rep. No. 69-653 at 67 Cong. Rec. 6652 (1926).

On March 25, 1926, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 69-653, and articles of impeachment against Judge English. 67 Cong. Rec. 6280-81 (1926). The next day a minority report was printed in the record. Id. at 6363-68. On March 30, 1926, the House began debate on the articles of impeachment. Id. at 6585. On April 1, 1926, the articles were adopted. Id. at 6736.

The Senate considered the articles of impeachment on April 23, 1926, and the impeachment trial began with Judge English’s answer to the articles on May 3, 1926. Id. at 8026, 8578. House managers then requested time to prepare a response to Judge English. On March 5, 1926, the Senate set November 10th as the date for the trial to resume. Id. at 8686, 8733.

On December 11, 1926, the House took note of Judge English’s resignation and requested the Senate drop the impeachment proceedings. 68 Cong. Rec. 302 (1926). The Senate accepted the House recommendation and ended the proceedings on December 13, 1926. Id. at 347-48.

Frank Cooper, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of New York

On January 28, 1927, Mr. LaGuardia brought impeachment charges against Judge Cooper. 68 Cong. Rec. 2487 (1927). The charges were referred to the Judiciary Committee for investigation. Id. at 2493. On March 2, 1927, the Judiciary Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 69-2299, recommending no impeachment action be taken against the Judge. This report was referred to the House calendar, and the next day a resolution, H.R. Res. 450, adopting the committee report, was passed by the House. Id. at 5463, 5619.

Grover Moscowitz, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of New York

On March 4, 1929, a joint resolution, H.R.J. Res. 431, calling for the investigation of Judge Moscowitz was signed by the President. 70 Cong. Rec. 5227 (1929). The resolution created a Select Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee to conduct the investigation. Id. at 4839. Following this investigation, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 70-1106, to the House criticizing Judge Moscowitz, but refused to recommend impeachment.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

According to Joseph Borkin, another resolution, H.R. Res. 330, to investigate Judge Moscowitz was adopted by the House and sent to the Judiciary Committee during the 74th Congress (1935). The Judiciary Committee apparently never acted on the resolution. Borkin, at 240.

Francis A. Winslow, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of New York

On April 15, 1929, Mr. LaGuardia introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 12, to investigate Judge Winslow. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 71 Cong. Rec. 33 (1929). On December 20, 1929, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 71-84, recommending the investigation cease due to Judge Winslow’s resignation. A resolution, H.R. Res. 110, adopting the committee’s report was passed by the House. 72 Cong. Rec. 1025-26 (1929).

Harry Anderson, U.S. District Judge, Western District of Tennessee

On March 12, 1930, Mr. LaGuardia introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 184, requesting that the Attorney General send the Judiciary Committee any available information on Judge Anderson’s conduct. 72 Cong. Rec. 5105-06 (1930). The resolution was sent to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 5141.

On June 2, 1930, a resolution from the Judiciary Committee, H.R. Res. 191, was introduced. The resolution called for a Special Committee, consisting of five members of the House Judiciary Committee, to be appointed to inquire into Judge Anderson’s conduct. The resolution was referred to the “Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union” and agreed to by the House on June 13, 1930. Id. at 9919, 10,649.

On February 18, 1931, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 71-2714, of their findings, and introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 362, stating insufficient grounds existed for impeachment. The resolution was adopted. 74 Cong. Rec. 5312-13 (1931).

Harold Louderback, U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California

On May 26, 1932, Mr. LaGuardia introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 239, requesting a Special Committee be appointed to investigate Judge Louderback. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further action. 75 Cong. Rec. 11,358 (1932). On May 31, 1932, the Judiciary Committee reported the resolution back to the House without amendment. Id. at 11,700. The resolution was adopted on June 9, 1932. Id. at 12,470.

A Special Committee was appointed to conduct the investigation and report its findings to the Judiciary Committee. On February 17, 1933, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report, H.R. Rep. No. 72-2065, and a resolution, H.R. Res. 387, requesting the report be adopted. 76 Cong. Rec. 4375-76 (1933). The report found insufficient evidence to warrant impeachment. Id. at 4913-14.

On February 24, 1933, when the Judiciary Committee report came up for consideration, Mr. LaGuardia introduced the minority report which recommended Judge Louderback be impeached and included five articles of impeachment. With two conflicting reports to consider, a debate arose in the House between those supporting the majority report’s recommendation not to impeach, and those supporting the five articles of impeachment presented in the minority report. When the debate was over, the House agreed to adopt the minority report and its articles of impeachment. Id. at 4913-25.

The Senate began its impeachment proceedings with Judge Louderback’s answer on April 11, 1933. 77 Cong. Rec. 1462 (1933). The actual impeachment trial started on May 15, 1933. Id. at 3394. On May 24, 1933, the Senate acquitted Judge Louderback on all charges. Id. at 4088.

James Lowell, U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts

On April 26, 1933, Mr. Smith introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 120, authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate Judge Lowell. The resolution was adopted. 77 Cong. Rec. 2415, 2421 (1933). On November 30, 1933, during the investigation, Judge Lowell died. On January 18, 1934, the Judiciary Committee introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 226, terminating the investigation. 78 Cong. Rec. 906 (1934). The resolution was adopted by the House on February 6, 1934. Id. at 2076.

James Wilkerson, Federal Judge, Chicago

On June 12, 1933, Mr. Cellers introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 145, to investigate the “matter of appointments, conduct, proceedings, and acts of receivers, trustees, and referees in bankruptcy.” The resolution was referred to the Rules Committee for further action. 77 Cong. Rec. 3502 (1933). On June 6, 1933, the Rules Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 203, recommending the Judiciary Committee conduct the investigation. Id. at 5136. The report was adopted by the House on June 12, 1933. Id. at 5798.

A Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee was appointed to handle the investigation. Judge Wilkerson’s conduct became a subject of their investigation. After reviewing the evidence the Subcommittee recommended against impeaching the Judge. (Reference to the above actions is found in a speech by Mr. Dirksen on May 7, 1935.) 79 Cong. Rec. 7085, 7087 (1935).

No record of any further action against Judge Wilkerson has been found in primary or secondary sources.

Judge Woodward, Federal Judge, Chicago

Judge Woodward’s conduct came to the attention of the Subcommittee conducting the bankruptcy investigation under House Resolution 145 (see James Wilkerson above). After reviewing the evidence the Subcommittee recommended against impeaching the Judge. (Reference to the above actions found in a speech by Mr. Dirksen on May 7, 1935). 79 Cong. Rec. 7083, 7087 (1935).

No record of any further action against Judge Woodward has been found in primary or secondary sources.

Judge Lindley, Federal Judge, Chicago

Judge Lindley’s conduct came to the attention of the Subcommittee conducting the bankruptcy investigation under House Resolution 145 (see James Wilkerson above). After reviewing the evidence the Subcommittee recommended against impeaching the Judge. (Reference to the above actions is found in a speech by Mr. Sabath on May 7, 1935.) 79 Cong. Rec. 7087 (1935).

No record of any further action against Judge Lindley has been found in primary or secondary sources.

Joseph Molyneaux, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota

On January 22, 1934, Mr. Shoemaker introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 233, authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate Judge Molyneaux. The resolution was adopted and referred to the Judiciary Committee. 78 Cong. Rec. 1099 (1934).

When no action was taken, Mr. Shoemaker introduced another resolution on April 20, 1934. This resolution contained impeachment charges against Judge Molyneaux, and was also referred to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 7060-80.

No other record regarding the disposition of these resolutions has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, they died in committee.

Samuel Alschuler, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh District (at Chicago)

On May 7, 1935, Mr. Dirksen offered a resolution, H.R. Res. 214, to investigate impeachment charges against Judge Alschuler. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 79 Cong. Rec. 7081-89 (1935). On May 13, 1935, the House adopted a resolution, H.R. Res. 220, granting the Judiciary Committee authority to hold hearings. Id. at 7393.

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Halsted L. Ritter, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida

On February 20, 1936, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report to the House recommending Judge Ritter be impeached. 80 Cong. Rec. 2528 (1936). The House adopted an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 422, against Judge Ritter on March 2, 1936. Id. at 3393. On March 9, 1936, the Senate received notice of Judge Ritter’s impeachment, and the next day the articles were read into the Senate Record. Id. at 3423, 3485.

Judge Ritter presented his answer to the Senate on April 3, 1936. Id. at 4898. On April 6, 1936, the impeachment trial began. Id. at 4971. Eleven days later, the Senate voted to acquit Judge Ritter on the first six articles, but convicted him on the seventh article, and removed him from office. Id. at 5602.

Ferdinand A. Geiger, U.S. District Judge, Eastern District of Wisconsin

No record of any impeachment investigation against Judge Geiger has been found in primary sources. However, according to Joseph Borkin, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the official conduct of Judge Geiger during the 75th Congress. However, when Judge Geiger resigned in 1939, no further action was taken. Borkin, at 232.

John P. Nields, U.S. District Judge, District of Delaware

No record of any impeachment investigation against Judge Nields has been found in primary sources. However, according to Joseph Borkin, the House Judiciary Committee investigated Judge Nields’ conduct in May 1941, during 77th Congress, 1st Session. Neither the results of the investigation, nor charges against the Judge were ever reported. Judge Nields apparently retired in October 1941, and no further action was taken. Borkin, at 240.

Albert Johnson, U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Pennsylvania

On February 15, 1945, a resolution, H.R. Res. 138, authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate impeachment charges against Judge Johnson (and Judge Watson, see below) was adopted by the House. 91 Cong. Rec. 1171 (1945).

The investigation of Judge Johnson was conducted at both the committee and subcommittee level. (Referenced in a speech by Mr. Russell.) 92 Cong. Rec. 2382 (1945). On July 3, 1945, during the Judiciary Committee investigation, Judge Johnson resigned. Id. at 2376. On July 14, 1945, Judge Johnson was called to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Following a poor performance by the Judge during cross examination, Judge Johnson relinquished his retirement salary and withdrew as a witness. Id.

On February 25, 1946, the Judiciary Committee released its final report, H.R. Rep. No. 79-1639, on the investigation of Judge Johnson. The report was referred to the Whole House on the State of the Union. Id. at 1592. The report did not recommend impeachment. Id. at A665.

No other record concerning the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

Albert Watson, U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Pennsylvania

On February 8, 1945, Mr. Summers introduced a resolution to investigate Judge Watson. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 91 Cong. Rec. 975 (1945). On February 15, 1945, a second resolution, H.R. Res. 138, authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate Judge Watson (and Judge Albert Johnson, see above), was introduced by Mr. Summers referred to the Judiciary for further action. Id. 1171. On February 23, 1945, the Judiciary Committee submitted a report requesting authorization for it or its Subcommittees to conduct a full investigation of Judge Watson. Id. at 1394.

On February 25, 1946, the Judiciary Committee released its final report, H.R. Rep. No. 79-1639, on the investigation of Judge Johnson. The report was referred to the Whole House on the State of the Union. Id. at 1592. The report did not recommend impeachment. Id. at A665.

No other record concerning the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court

On June 17, 1953, Mr. Wheeler introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 290, impeaching Justice Douglas. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee to investigate the charges. 99 Cong. Rec. 6760 (1953).

No other record of the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary sources.

However, according to the Congressional Quarterly Guide to the United States Supreme Court, on June 18, 1953, the Judiciary Committee appointed a Special Subcommittee to conduct the investigation. Then on July 7, 1953, the Judiciary Committee voted to table the resolution and no further action was taken. Congressional Quarterly Guide to US Supreme. Court, at 661 (Elder Witt ed., Congressional Quarterly, Inc. 2ed. 1990).

On April 15, 1970, Mr. Jacobs began a second attempt to impeach Justice Douglas. His resolution to impeach the Justice, H.R. Res. 920, was referred to the Judiciary Committee for investigation. 116 Cong. Rec. 11,942 (1970). The next day seven resolutions, H.R. Res. 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, and 928, requesting an investigation of Justice Douglas were introduced on the floor of the House. All of the resolutions sought the creation of a Select Committee to conduct the investigation, and all were referred to the Rules Committee for further action. Id. at 12,130-31. On April 20, 1970, Mr. Wyman introduced resolution, H.R. Res. 936, to investigate Justice Douglas. This resolution was referred to the Rules Committee. Id at 12,464. On April 28, 1970, Mr. Gooding introduced resolution to investigate Justice Douglas. This resolution was also sent to the Rules Committee. Id. at 13,326.

On April 21, 1970, a Special Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was appointed to conduct an investigation under House Resolution 920. The Special Subcommittee issued a progress report on June 20, 1970. See August 5, 1970, press release by the Special Subcommittee at 116 Cong. Rec. 27,673 (1970).

The final report of the Special Subcommittee found no cause for impeachment and recommended no further action be taken. Mr. Wyman criticized this report on December 17, 1970. Id. at 42,240. On December 21, 1970, Mr. Dennis, a member of the Judiciary Committee, criticized his Committee for refusing to even bring the Subcommittee report to a vote. Id. at 43,147-48.

No other record regarding the disposition of this report has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, no action was taken before the end of the congressional session.

Alfred Murrah, Chief Judge, Tenth Circuit Stephen Chandler, U.S. District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma Luther Bohanon, U.S. District Judge, Eastern, Northern and Western Districts of Oklahoma

On February 21, 1966, Mr. Gross requested an investigation of these three Oklahoma judges. 112 Cong. Rec. 3489-90 (1966). A resolution to investigate, H.R. Res. 739, was adopted the next day and sent to the Judiciary Committee for further action. Id. at 3653.

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

Frank J. Battist, U.S. District Judge, Ohio

On January 24, 1978, Mr. Ashbrook introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 966, against Judge Battisti. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 124 Cong. Rec. 545 (1978).

No other record regarding the disposition of this resolution has been found in primary or secondary sources. Presumably, it died in committee.

140 Federal Judges

In the mid 1970’s, a large group of federal judges challenged their lack of pay raises during a high inflationary period, making the argument that this amounted to a diminution in compensation as prohibited by the Constitution. Their lawsuit failed.

On March 2, 1976, Mr. Jacobs introduced an impeachment resolution against certain federal judges involved in the above mentioned dispute. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 122 Cong. Rec. 5029 (1976).

Mr. Jacobs introduced a second impeachment resolution against the same judges on April 8, 1976. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 122 Cong. Rec. 9987 (1976).

No other record regarding the disposition of these resolutions has been found in primary or secondary sources. It is likely they died in committee.

Harry E. Claiborne, U.S. District Judge, District of Nevada

On June 3, 1986, Mr. Rodino offered an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 461, against Judge Claiborne. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 132 Cong. Rec. 12,129 (1986). Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced a second impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 487, against Judge Claiborne on June 24, 1986. This resolution was also sent to the Judiciary Committee. Id. at 15,287.

The Judiciary Committee appointed its Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice to assist with the investigation. Conduct of Harry E. Claiborne: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Court, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice, 99th Cong. at 1 (1987). The Judiciary Committee reported its findings to the House on July 16, 1986, and the report, H.R. Rep. No. 99-688, was referred to the House calendar. Id. at 16,745.

On July 22, 1986, the committee report was debated in the House. The report included four articles of impeachment against Judge Claiborne. Mr. Rodino proposed a resolution adopting the report and impeaching the Judge. Id. 17,294-95. The resolution was adopted by the House. Id. at 17,305. Also on July 22, 1986, Mr. Rodino introduced a resolution, H.R. Res. 501, appointing managers for the Senate trial. This resolution was also adopted by the House. Id. at 17,306-07.

On October 9, 1986, the Senate concluded its trial and voted on the articles of impeachment. Judge Claiborne was convicted on all articles except Article III. Id. at 29,870-78.

Alcee L. Hastings, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida

On March 23, 1987, Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 128, against Judge Hastings. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 133 Cong. Rec. 6514, 6522 (1987). On March 31, 1987, the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Criminal Justice met in executive session to discuss Judge Hastings’ impeachment inquiry. Id. at D215.

On July 7, 1988, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice concluded its hearings on Judge Hastings’ impeachment. These hearings had been held periodically since May 18, 1988. Impeachment Inquiry: Hearings before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee of the Judiciary House of Representatives, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988). On August 1, 1988, the Judiciary Committee submitted its final report, H.R. Rep. No. 100-810, along with a resolution, H.R. Res. 499, impeaching Judge Hastings. The report and resolution were referred to the House calendar. 134 Cong. Rec. 19,696 (1988).

On August 3, 1988, the House considered and adopted the impeachment resolution and the seventeen articles of impeachment it included. Id. at 20,206-11. The Senate concluded its impeachment trial on October 20, 1989. Judge Hastings was removed from office after being found guilty of articles I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX. 135 Cong. Rec. 25,329-35 (1988).

Walter L. Nixon, Jr., U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Mississippi

On February 22, 1989, Mr. Brooks introduced an impeachment resolution, H.R. Res. 87, against Judge Nixon. The resolution was referred to the Judiciary Committee for further action. 135 Cong. Rec. 2553 (1989). The Judiciary Committee appointed its Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights to conduct the preliminary investigation. On March 21, 1989, the Subcommittee recommended a full Committee investigation. Id. at D252.

The Judiciary Committee submitted its report, H.R. Rep. No. 101-36, to the House on April 25, 1989. The report included three articles of impeachment against Judge Nixon. On May 10, 1989, the House debated and adopted the articles of impeachment presented in the Judiciary Committee report. Id. at 7404, 8814-24.

Immediately after the resolution was passed on May 10, 1989, Mr. Brooks offered a resolution, H.R. Res. 150, appointing the managers to prosecute the impeachment before the Senate. Id. at 8824. A resolution amending the articles of impeachment, H.R. Res. 251, was offered and passed on October 2, 1989. Id. at 22,718, 22,726-27.

The Senate concluded its trial on November 3, 1989, and proceeded to a vote on the articles of impeachment. Judge Nixon was removed from office after being found guilty of articles I and II. Id. at 27,102-04.