Impeachment is the procedure in which a legislative body, like the United States Congress, can punish or remove government officials from their positions. This is a way for the legislative branch to check and balance the executive and judicial branches and police itself as well. As of December 2019, there have been 66 federal judges or Supreme Court Justices investigated for impeachment.Warren S. Grimes, "Hundred-Ton Gun Control: "Preserving Impeachment as the Exclusive Removal Mechanism for Federal Judges." UCLA Law Review, Vol. 38, No. 5, June 1991; n 21, p. 1213, citing J. Borkin, The Corrupt Judge 219–58 (1962). See also Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Impeachment: An Overview of Constitutional Provisions, "Procedure, and Practice Elizabeth B. Bazan, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, February 14, 1995 (Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress) Usually, misbehavior is brought to the attention of a legislator, who may call upon the United States House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate. After a review of its findings, in which case, the entire House takes on the role of grand jury and votes an indictment for “high crimes and misdemeanors". If a majority of the members of the United States House of Representatives vote to impeach, the impeachment is referred to the United States Senate for an impeachment trial. A conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. The individual may or may not then stand trial in a criminal court as well, before a jury of his peers. While the two procedures can occur together, they never have. In the criminal trial the individual may be punished with fines and/or incarceration.

For a period of nearly 40 years after World War II, the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution was considered moribund. A number of federal judges were targeted for primarily ideological reasons or that of personal malice by U.S. Representatives and these were always "filed away" by the House Judiciary Committee with no further action.

Prior to 2025, only the attempts to impeach Justice William O. Douglas and a scandal in Oklahoma made it to the hearing stage. What might have become serious impeachment proceedings, those against Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas and Appeals Court Judge Otto Kerner, was followed by the target's immediate resignation before any formal proceedings could actually begin. The Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 empowered the Judicial Conference of the United States to investigate and police the judiciary and, if need be, request that the House of Representatives impeach federal judges. Judicial councils are established in each circuit and investigate complaints and may certify the disability of judges or refer complaints to the Judicial Conference. Most judicial impeachments since then have been based on these requests.

18th century George Turner – Northwest Territory On May 10, 1796, the House received a report from the Attorney General on the conduct of George Turner a judge in the Northwest Territory, which included demands for bribes, and the wanton levy of fines without trial. 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, Representative Theophilus Bradbury of Massachusetts submitted the select committee report and a resolution recommending a hearing be held in the Northwest Territory.

This resolution was tabled by the House.6 Annals of Cong. 2320. However Judge Turner resigned just a few months later.

19th century John Pickering – District of New Hampshire On February 4, 1803, the House received a report from President Jefferson regarding the conduct of Judge John Pickering of the District of New Hampshire. A select committee was appointed to investigate the matter and submitted its report to the House on February 18.Id. at 544. On March 2, the House passed a resolution impeaching Judge Pickering.Id. at 641. On October 20, the House appointed a select committee to draft articles of impeachment. The select committee submitted four articles of impeachment to the House on December 27, and on December 30, articles were formally adopted.13 Annals of Cong. 795. The Senate began the impeachment trial against Judge Pickering on January 4, 1804.12 Annals of Cong.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 – United States Supreme Court

On January 5, 1804, a resolution was introduced appointing a select committee to investigate U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel 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 eight articles on March 26, 1804,Id. at 1237. one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed to his "intemperate and inflammatory (…) peculiarly indecent and unbecoming (…) highly unwarrantable (…) highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. The Democratic-Republican-controlled United States Senate began the impeachment trial of Chase in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding.

All the counts involved Chase's work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century. The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase's defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Democratic-Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.

The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. He returned to his duties on the court. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court Justice to have been impeached.4 Annals of Cong. 669 (1805).

The acquittal of Chase – by lopsided margins on several of the counts – is believed to have helped ensure that an independent federal judiciary would survive partisan challenge. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book, Grand Inquests, some people expressed opinions at the time of Chase's trial that the Senate had absolute latitude in convicting a jurist it found unfit, but the acquittal set an unofficial precedent that judges would not be impeached based on their performance on the bench. All judges impeached since Chase have been accused of outright criminality.

Richard Peters – District of Pennsylvania On January 6, 1804, Judge Peters of the District of Pennsylvania 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.

The select committee report, exonerating Judge Peters of any wrongdoing, was adopted by the House on March 12.Id. at 1171, 1181.

Harry Innes – District of Kentucky On March 21, 1808, a resolution to investigate Harry Innes of the District of Kentucky was introduced to the United States House of Representatives. The resolution was tabled.18 Annals of Cong. 1858, 1860 (1808). On March 31, 1808, they tried again and it was adopted by the House.Id. at 1886.

A select committee was appointed to conduct the investigation, and it submitted a report, absolving the Judge of all wrongdoing, to the House on April 19, 1808.Id. at 2197–98

Peter Bruin – Mississippi Territory On April 9, 1808, At the request of the territorial legislature, Mississippi delegate George Poindexter introduced a resolution calling for the appointment of a special committee to prepare articles of impeachment against Presiding Judge Peter Bruin of the Mississippi Territory.Hinds Precedents — Volume II , from the U.S. Government Printing Office. The resolution was tabled.18 Annals of Cong. 2068–70 (1808). On April 18, the resolution was reconsidered and a special committee, chaired by Poindexter, was appointed to investigate the Judge.,Id. at 2189. who was charged with "neglect of duty and drunkenness on the bench."

Bruin resigned on October 12, 1808, as a consequence of the investigation. The House terminated impeachment proceedings, and Bruin died in 1827.

Harry Toulmin – Mississippi Territory On December 19, 1811, as a result of an accusatory letter from Judge Harry Toulmin's district (the Washington District of the Mississippi Territory), 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.

Van Ness and Tallmadge – Southern District of New York On April 10, 1818, a resolution was introduced requesting that a special committee be appointed to investigate Judges William P. Van Ness and Matthias B. Tallmadge of the Southern District of New York. The resolution was adopted by the House.32 Annals of Cong. 1715 (1818). Both had been charged with not doing any work. Talmage, claimed that he had so much paperwork left over by his predecessor that he had no time to do anything else, and that his health was so delicate that he needed a long vacation.

On February 17, 1819, the special committee submitted a report to the House recommending no action be taken against either Judge.34 Annals of Cong. 1217–18 (1819).

William Stephens – District of Georgia On April 10, 1818, a special committee was appointed to investigate William Stephens of the District of Georgia.32 Annals of Cong. 1716 (1818).

Judge Stevens resigned during the House investigation, and on November 24, the special committee was disbanded.33 Annals of Cong. 313 (1818).

Charles Tait – Circuit Court, Alabama