Impeachment Grounds: Part 4B: Articles of Past Impeachments

Impeachment Grounds: Part 4B: Articles of Past Impeachments

98-897 A
October 30, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Impeachment Grounds:
Part 4B: Articles of Past Impeachments
(name redacted)
Senior Specialist
American Law Division
Summary
This is a collection of selected background materials pertinent to the issue of what
constitutes impeachable misconduct for purposes of Article II, section 4 of the United
States Constitution. It includes summaries and excerpts of impeachments under this
section. It is the fourth of six segments that together with footnotes comprise,
Impeachment Grounds: A Collection of Selected Materials, CRS Report 98-882. Due
its length, this part has itself been divided in half and consists of two reports, Parts 4A
and 4B.
American Impeachment Experience (Cont.)
Appellate Court Judge Robert Archbald
A. Proceedings
1. The House impeached Judge Archbald on July 11, 1912, VI CANNON’S
PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (CANNON’S) §500.
2. The Senate convicted him on articles I, III, IV, V, and XIII on January 13, 1913,
and acquitted him on the others, VI CANNON’S §512.
B. Articles of Impeachment
“Article I charged that Archbald `willfully, unlawfully, and corruptly took
advantage of his official position . . . to induce and influence the officials of a
company with litigation pending before his court to enter into a contract with
Archbald and his business partner to sell them assets of a subsidiary company. The
contract was allegedly profitable to Archbald.
* * *
“Article III charged Archbald with using his official position to obtain a leasing
agreement from a party with suits pending in the Commerce Court.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
“Article IV alleged `gross and improper conduct’ in that Archbald had (in
another suit pending in the Commerce Court) `secretly, wrongfully, and unlawfully’
requested an attorney to obtain an explanation of certain testimony from a witness
in the case and subsequently requested argument in support of certain contentions
from the same attorney, all `without the knowledge or consent’ of the opposing
party.
“Article V charged Archbald with accepting `a gift, reward or present’ from a
person for whom Archbald had attempted to gain a favorable leasing agreement with
a potential litigant in Archbald’s court.
“Article XIII summarized Archbald’s conduct both as district court judge and
commerce court judge, charging that Archbald had used these offices `wrongfully
to obtain credit,’ and charging that he had used the latter office to affect `various and
diverse contracts and agreements’ in return for which he had received hidden
interests in said contracts, agreements, and properties.”
“Article II also charged Archbald with `willfully, unlawfully, and corruptly’
using his position as judge to influence a litigant then before the Interstate
Commerce Commission (who on appeal would be before the Commerce Court) to
settle the case and purchase stock.”
Articles VI through XII alleged similar acts of bribery, extortion, and
misconduct committed while Archbald was a district court judge.
District Court Judge Halsted Ritter
A. Proceedings
1. The House initially impeached Judge Ritter on March 2, 1936, 3 DESCHLER’S
PRECEDENTS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (DESCHLER’S) ch.14 §18.4, and
subsequently amended its articles of impeachment on March 30, 1936, before they
were presented to the Senate, 3 DESCHLER’S ch.14, §18.10.
2. The Senate convicted Judge Ritter on article VII, but acquitted him on the
first six articles, 3 DESCHLER’S ch.14, §18.17.

B. Articles of Impeachment
Article VII “charged that Ritter was guilty of misbehavior and high crimes and
misdemeanors in office because `the reasonable and probable consequences of [his]
actions or conduct . . . as an individual or . . . judge, is to bring his court into scandal
and disrepute,’ to the prejudice of his court and public confidence in the
administration of justice in it, and to `the prejudice of public respect for and
confidence in the Federal judiciary,’ rendering him `unfit to continue to serve as a
such judge.’ There followed four specifications of the `actions or conduct’ referred
to. The first two were later dropped . . . the third referred to Ritter’s acceptance (not
alleged to be corrupt or unlawful) of fees and gratuities from persons with large
property interests within his territorial jurisdiction. The fourth, or omnibus,
specification was to ‘his conduct as detailed in Articles I, II, III and IV hereof, and
by his income-tax evasions as set forth in Articles V and VI hereof.’”
“Article I charged Ritter with `misbehavior’ and `a high crime and
misdemeanor in office,’ in fixing an exorbitant attorney’s fee to be paid to Ritter’s
former law partner, in disregard of the `restraint of propriety . . . and . . . danger of
embarrassment’; and in `corruptly and unlawfully’ accepting cash payments from the
attorney at the time the fee was paid.”

CRS-3
“Article II charged that Ritter, with others, entered into an `arrangement’ whose
purpose was to ensure that bankruptcy property would continue in litigation before
Ritter’s court. Rulings by Ritter were alleged to have `made effective the
champertous undertaking’ of others, but Ritter was not himself explicitly charged
with the crime of champerty or related criminal offenses. . . .”
Articles III and IV accused Ritter of “the practice of law while on the bench, in
violation of the Judicial Code”; conduct which was not itself criminal.
Articles V and VI “alleged that Ritter had violated the Revenue Act of 1928 by
willfully failing to report and pay tax on certain income received by him. . . .” Each
failure was described as a “high misdemeanor in office.”
District Court Judge Harry Claiborne
A. Proceedings
1. Judge Claiborne was tried and convicted of tax evasion in violation of 26
U.S.C. 7206, United States v. Claiborne, 765 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1985).
2. He was impeached by the House, 132 Cong.Rec. 17294-306 (1986).
3. The Senate convicted him on articles I, II and IV, 132 Cong.Rec. 29870-873
(1986); BROWN, HOUSE PRACTICE: A GUIDE TO THE RULES, PRECEDENTS AND
PROCEDURES OF THE HOUSE 538 (1996).
B. Articles of Impeachment
Articles I, II and III charged Judge Claiborne with misbehavior and high crimes
and misdemeanors warranting impeachment, trial and removal from office for three
specific alleged violations of 26 U.S.C. 7206(1).
Article IV, was a general disrepute charge, and alleged that Judge Claiborne,
“by willfully falsifying his income on his Federal tax returns for 1979 and 1980, has
betrayed the trust of the people of the United States and reduced confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, thereby bringing disrepute on the Federal
courts and the administration of justice by the courts.”
District Court Judge Alcee Hastings
A. Proceedings
1. Judge Hastings was tried and acquitted of violations of 18 U.S.C. 2 (aiding
and abetting), 371 (conspiracy), and 1503 (obstruction of justice), see United States
v. Hastings, 681 F.2d 706, 707 n.2 (11th Cir. 1982); Hastings v. Judicial
Conference, 829 F.2d 91, 95 (D.C.Cir. 1987).
2. Impeached by the House, 134 Cong.Rec. 20211-221 (1988).
3. The Senate convicted him on articles I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, and IX, and
acquitted him of the other articles, 135 Cong.Rec. 25329-335 (1989).

B. Articles of Impeachment
Article I charged that Judge Hastings “engaged in a corrupt conspiracy to obtain
$150,000 from defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge

CRS-4
Hastings, in return for the imposition of sentences which would not require
incarceration of the defendants. . . .”
Articles II through XV each accused Judge Hastings of perjuring himself in
testimony at his criminal trial with respect to a different specific statement.
Article XVI alleged that he disclosed the existence of an undercover operation.
Article XVII was an omnibus charge that included all the others.
District Court Judge Walter Nixon
A. Proceedings
1. Judge Nixon was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 1623 (false statements
before the grand jury), United States v. Nixon, 827 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1987).
2. He was impeached by the House, 135 Cong.Rec. 8814-823 (1989).
3. The Senate convicted him on Articles I and II, and acquitted him on Article
III, 135 Cong.Rec. 27101-104 (1989).
B. Articles of Impeachment
Articles I and II charged Judge Nixon with making two specific false statements
before the grand jury which it concluded made Judge Nixon “guilty of an
impeachable offense” for which he “should be removed from office.”
Article III laid out a series of specific allegations growing out of the same
situations involved in Articles I and II and charged that they demonstrated that Judge
Nixon had “raised substantial doubt as to his judicial integrity, undermined
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, betrayed the trust of the
people of the United States, disobeyed the laws of the United States and brought
disrepute on the Federal courts and administration of justice by the Federal courts.”
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase
A. Proceedings
1. The House impeached Chase on March 12, 1804, III HINDS §2343.
2. The Senate acquitted him on February 27, 1805, III HINDS §2363.
B. Articles of Impeachment
The articles of impeachment essentially accused Chase of conduct unbecoming
a judge including allegations that he used an “intemperate and inflammatory political
harangue to charge the federal grand jury,” by referring a sedition case to the grand
jury and handling of Sedition Act cases, by refusing to grant a continuance in a
pending case, by using incorrect procedural forms, and by conducting trials “marked
by manifest injustice, partiality and intemperance.”

CRS-5
District Court Judge James Peck
A. Proceedings
1. The House impeached Judge Peck on April 24, 1830, III HINDS §2367.
2. The Senate acquitted him on January 31, 1831, III HINDS §2383.
B. Articles of Impeachment
The single article against Judge Peck charged that he had briefly imprisoned,
and suspended from practice, an attorney who wrote a newspaper article critical of
one of the Judge’s decisions.
District Court Judge Charles Swayne
A. Proceedings
1. The House impeached Judge Swayne on December 13, 1904, III HINDS
§2472.
2. The Senate acquitted him on February 27, 1905, III HINDS §2485.
B. Articles of Impeachment
The twelve articles of impeachment presented to the Senate charged Judge Swayne
with abuse of official travel allowances, failing to live in a required judicial district, and
improperly holding attorneys and a litigant in contempt of court.
District Court Judge George English
A. Proceedings
1. The House impeached Judge English on April 1, 1926, VI CANNON’S §545.
2. The Judge resigned shortly before trial in the Senate, VI CANNON’S §574.
3. The Senate dismissed the impeachment after receiving a request to do so
from the House in light of Judge English’s having resigned, ID.
B. Articles of Impeachment
“Article I charged that Judge English `did on divers and various occasions so
abuse the powers of his high office that he is hereby charged with tyranny and
oppression, whereby he has brought the administration of justice in [his] court . . .
into disrepute, and . . . is guilty of misbehavior falling under the constitutional
provision as ground for impeachment and removal from office.’”
Articles II, III, & IV accused Judge English of interfering with bankruptcy
proceedings.
Article V alleged that his treatment of members of the bar and litigants
discouraged the exercise of their rights and conveyed the impression that his cases
were decided other than on the merits.

CRS-6
District Court Judge Harold Louderback
A. Proceedings
1. A majority of the special inquiry committee recommended censure rather
than impeachment, although a minority urged impeachment, VI CANNON’S §514.
2. The House impeached Judge Louderback on February 24, 1933, ID.
3. The Senate acquitted him on all articles on May 24, 1933, VI CANNON’S
§524.
B. Articles of Impeachment
“Article I charged that Louderback `did . . . so abuse the power of his high
office, that he is hereby charged with tyranny and oppression, favoritism and
conspiracy, whereby he has brought the administration of justice in the court of
which he is a judge into disrepute, and by his conduct is guilty of misbehavior.’”
Articles II, III & IV accused the Judge of various instances of favoritism in
bankruptcy cases.
Article V charged that as consequence of the misconduct alleged in the prior
articles he had destroyed confidence in his court “which for a Federal judge . . . is
a crime and misdemeanor of the highest order.”

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.