Federal impeachment trial in the United States

The preceding stage is the "impeachment" itself, held by a vote in the United States House of Representatives.

A "guilty" verdict (requiring a two-thirds majority) has the effect of immediately removing an officeholder from office.

After, and only after, a "guilty" verdict, the Senate has the option of additionally barring the official from ever holding federal office again, which can be done by a simple-majority vote.

This was particularly important at the time of the Constitution's writing, as, before the reforms of the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, presidents and vice presidents were not elected together on tickets and could potentially be of rival political factions.

Alternatively, the presiding officer can forgo ruling on a question and directly submit it to a Senate vote.

[4][6] Senators who act as the presiding officer of an impeachment hearing are still permitted to vote in the trial.

However, the 1999 impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, Senator Tom Harkin objected to the use of the term "jurors", and Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with Harkin's position over that of the House impeachment managers (prosecutors), declaring, "The chair is of the view that the senator from Iowa's objection is well taken, that the core - the Senate is not simply a jury.

[2] While they are always approved by House vote, how the initial decision of who serves as a manager is arrived at has differed between impeachments.

In Donald Trump's first impeachment trial, in addition to private counsel, he had several House members belonging to his political party work on his defense.

Impeachment trials are further outlined in section three, clause six of Article One of the United States Constitution.

The Constitution requires that a two-thirds majority vote "guilty" in order for an individual to be convicted and removed from office.

[2] The Constitution also specifies that, after a conviction, the Senate may vote to additionally bar an individual from again holding federal office.

[6] Its only further specifications are that the chief justice of the United States presides over presidential impeachment trials, and that each senator must swear an oath.

[11] The first two impeachment trials in United States history (those of William Blount and John Pickering) had each had their own individual set of rules.

[25] Because of this, a select committee of senators was tasked with developing rules to be used in the impeachment trial of Johnson.

[14]This rule change was motivated by the 1933 impeachment trial of Judge Harold Louderback, which highlighted the difficulties that could be brought by requiring a plenary session of the senate for all aspects of a lengthy impeachment trial during a busy legislative period.

Its constitutionality was tested by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1993 Nixon v. United States case, arising from the 1989 impeachment trial of Walter Nixon, in which the Supreme Court upheld the United States Senate's authority to determine its own procedures, which includes its decision to opt for use of Rule XI trial committees.

In 1986, the impeachment managers for the trial of Judge Harry E. Claiborne argued that this would be permissible.

[28] This precedent was cited in the Senate's decision to commence with the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump after he had already left office.

[29] In 2021, University of Alabama School of Law professor Ronald Krotoszynski wrote an article in Politico opining that it is possible for the Senate to end the argument phase of an impeachment trial early and move instead to closing arguments if it took a majority vote in favor of a motion to do so.

[31] Both the Senate and the House have, in the past, judged themselves to be able to utilize their impeachment authorities on former officeholders.

[32][33] Many scholars have argued that if impeachment could not apply to former officeholders, then the Senate's power to disqualify individuals from holding future federal office through an impeachment process would be greatly weakened, as there would be a loophole of resigning before this sentence is imposed by the Senate.

Of the twenty-one individuals to be impeached by the United States House of Representatives, only Mark W. Delahay did not face a trial, as the Senate decided not to hold a trial into him after he resigned his office following his impeachment by the House.

This includes rules governing significant details of the trial itself, such as whether witnesses will be permitted.

The rules adopted regarding press coverage within the Senate chamber have differed between impeachment trials.

[11][42] Minimal guidance is provided by the Constitution as to events in trials and their order other than the stipulation for an oath to be taken by senators and the stipulation that a vote on whether to disqualify an official from holding federal office again may only be held after a successful vote to convict.

[12] The House managers, representing the prosecution, will both open and close the final argument stage.

The reason for presenting such a resolution would be to provide an alternative means for the Senate to express dismay about wrongdoings without convicting and removing an official from office.

A vote to ban, however, cannot be held unless a conviction has first passed the two-thirds majority threshold.

[2][45] Political bias of some news outlets have been observed to shape their coverage of presidential impeachments, which have been often seen as highly partisan affairs.