What is the impeachment power?
The impeachment power is the constitutional mechanism by which the House of Representatives may charge, and the Senate may try and remove, the President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Three clauses of Article I govern the process. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 vests the House with the sole Power of Impeachment -- the power to bring charges by a simple majority vote of those present. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 vests the Senate with the sole Power to try all Impeachments; senators sit on oath or affirmation; when the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice presides; and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 limits the judgment: it shall not extend further than removal from Office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States, but the party convicted remains liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. Alexander Hamilton described the purpose in Federalist No. 65 (1788): impeachable offenses are those which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or from the abuse or violation of some public trust; they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself; the Senate is the appropriate trial body because its size is sufficient to convey the dignity and deliberation the proceeding demands, and its independent character insulates it from presidential influence. In Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), the Supreme Court held unanimously, in an opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, that the question of what procedures the Senate must follow to satisfy its constitutional obligation to 'try' impeachments is a nonjusticiable political question committed entirely to the Senate's unreviewable discretion. For the 2028 election, Senate control -- determined by the 33 Class II seats on the ballot -- sets the rules for any impeachment trial that may occur during the term beginning January 20, 2029, without possibility of judicial correction.
The impeachment power is allocated between the two chambers of Congress by three clauses of Article I of the Constitution. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides that the House of Representatives 'shall have the sole Power of Impeachment' -- charging an officer by a simple majority vote, analogous to a grand jury indictment, which sends the matter to the Senate for trial without itself determining guilt. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 provides that 'The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments': senators sit on oath or affirmation; when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 limits the available punishment: '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,' but the convicted party 'shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.' Article II, Section 4 states the grounds: '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.' Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 65 (1788), described the theoretical foundation: impeachable offenses are those 'which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust' -- they 'relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.' Hamilton argued that the Senate was the appropriate trial body because a court composed of judges would lack the institutional weight that the gravity of removal demanded; the Senate was large enough to inspire confidence, sufficiently independent of the President to serve as an impartial tribunal, and capable of sitting long enough to hear complex evidence. The Chief Justice presides at presidential trials specifically to avoid the obvious conflict of the Vice President presiding over a trial at which a conviction would make the Vice President President.
Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), resolved whether federal courts may review the adequacy of the Senate's trial procedures. Walter L. Nixon Jr., a federal district judge for the Southern District of Mississippi, was convicted in federal court on two counts of making false statements to a grand jury that was investigating allegations that he had accepted a bribe in exchange for interceding in a drug prosecution involving the son of a business associate. After his conviction the House impeached him, and the Senate proceeded to trial under Senate Impeachment Rule XI, which authorized the presiding officer to appoint a committee of twelve senators to receive evidence and take testimony. The full Senate then convened to hear the committee's report and argument by counsel before voting on the articles of impeachment. Nixon argued that the use of the twelve-senator committee violated the Impeachment Trial Clause because the word 'try' in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 required the full Senate to hear witnesses and evaluate evidence directly. Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court in a unanimous judgment (with Justices White, Blackmun, and Souter concurring separately in the judgment), held that the question of what procedures the Senate must use to satisfy its constitutional obligation to 'try' impeachments is a nonjusticiable political question. Three Baker v. Carr factors converged: the Impeachment Trial Clause gives the Senate the 'sole' power to try, a textually demonstrable commitment to a coordinate branch; the word 'try' does not supply judicially discoverable and manageable standards by which courts could evaluate the adequacy of Senate procedures; and the Founders deliberately excluded the Supreme Court from the impeachment process, having considered and rejected giving the Court a role. The consequence is categorical: federal courts will not review whether the Senate heard enough witnesses, whether the committee procedure was adequate, whether the senators were sufficiently attentive to the evidence, or any other aspect of the trial's conduct. The Senate's procedural rules are committed entirely to the Senate's own discretion, insulated from judicial correction.
The scope of the phrase 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' has been debated since the Founding without definitive judicial resolution, and the Supreme Court's holding in Nixon v. United States (1993) forecloses any judicial answer: what conduct constitutes an impeachable offense is a question for the House and Senate, not the courts. The constitutional phrase draws on English parliamentary history; 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' was a term of art in British parliamentary impeachment practice referring to offenses against the state or the public trust, committed by persons in positions of official authority. The phrase was not limited to conduct that was also a crime under the ordinary criminal law; impeachable conduct historically included misuse of public funds, abuse of official power, neglect of duty, and betrayal of public trust, as well as criminal conduct. The House Judiciary Committee's 1974 staff report on the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment concluded that an impeachable offense need not be a criminal offense and need not be defined by the criminal law; it is conduct that, in the Committee's judgment, is incompatible with the constitutional form of government and the office the officer holds. Historically, the most consequential presidential impeachments have reflected this broad understanding: the articles against President Andrew Johnson in 1868 charged violation of the Tenure of Office Act by removing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton without Senate consent -- the Senate voted 35-19 to convict, one vote short of the two-thirds required, and Johnson remained in office; the articles against President Bill Clinton in 1998-1999 charged perjury and obstruction of justice arising from the Lewinsky investigation -- the Senate acquitted, with the perjury article failing 45-55 and the obstruction article failing 50-50; the articles against President Donald Trump in 2019-2020 charged abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- the Senate acquitted, 48-52 and 47-53; the articles against President Donald Trump in 2021 charged incitement of insurrection -- the Senate voted 57-43, ten votes short of the two-thirds required for conviction. The acquittals in each case are not judicial determinations that the conduct fell outside the scope of 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors'; they are political judgments by the senators who voted.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 establishes that impeachment judgment consists of two distinct components: removal from Office and disqualification from holding future federal office. These are separate judgments, and Senate practice has established that each is voted on independently. The two-thirds conviction threshold specified in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 applies to the conviction itself -- 'no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present' -- but Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 does not specify a separate supermajority threshold for the disqualification component. The Senate has treated disqualification as a separate, subsequent vote requiring only a simple majority. This approach was applied most clearly in the impeachment trial of Secretary of War William W. Belknap in 1876: the Senate voted to convict Belknap on the merits but the vote fell short of two-thirds (37 senators voting guilty, 25 not guilty), and then voted 35-25 to disqualify him from future federal office -- the disqualification vote proceeding on a simple majority basis after the failed conviction vote. In the 1989 impeachment trial of federal district judge Alcee Hastings, the Senate voted 69-26 to convict and then held a separate vote to disqualify from future federal office, establishing the procedural practice of two discrete votes. The practical significance of the disqualification judgment is that it bars the person from holding the presidency, any Cabinet post, any federal judgeship, or any other 'Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States,' without additional criminal punishment -- the separate preservation of criminal liability in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 makes clear that impeachment conviction is a civil judgment distinct from the criminal process, and the party convicted may be separately prosecuted in federal or state court for the same underlying conduct. Resignation from office before conviction does not terminate an impeachment trial; the Senate may continue to try and may vote on disqualification from future federal office even after a subject has resigned, as the Belknap trial itself demonstrated.
For the 2028 election, the impeachment power will be shaped in three ways by the election results. First, Senate control determines impeachment trial rules without judicial check. Nixon v. United States (1993) established that the Senate's trial procedures -- witness rules, evidence rules, the use of committees, the length of deliberation, the form of the vote -- are committed to the Senate's unreviewable discretion; whichever party controls the Senate after the 2028 elections (including 33 Class II seats) may adopt whatever trial rules it chooses for any impeachment proceeding during the term beginning January 20, 2029. Second, the Chief Justice presides over a presidential impeachment trial under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6; at all other impeachment trials the Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides. Any Supreme Court vacancy arising during the new presidential term and filled by the 2028 winner will therefore shape who presides over any future presidential trial -- a role that carries significant procedural authority even if the substantive outcome is committed to the Senate's majority. Third, the 2028 winner will nominate federal judges -- including district judges and circuit judges -- whose future conduct may or may not lead to impeachment proceedings by the House and trial by the Senate; the conviction rate for federal judges in impeachment is historically low, and the disqualification judgment is the Senate's most common use of the power against federal officers other than the President. The 33 Class II Senate seats include seats in states that are presidential battlegrounds, making the Senate composition for the 2029-2031 period directly tied to the presidential race and to the ability of the new administration to resist or invite congressional oversight of executive branch conduct.
Related: What is the political question doctrine? (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), six-factor test; Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), held unanimously that Senate impeachment trial procedures are a nonjusticiable political question committed to the Senate's unreviewable discretion -- the foundational modern limit on judicial review of the impeachment process) | What is executive privilege? (United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), 8-0, established the constitutional doctrine of presidential communications privilege and held it not absolute against a specific demonstrated need in criminal proceedings; distinct from Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), which addressed Senate impeachment trial procedures) | What is the 17th Amendment? (the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified April 8, 1913, established direct popular election of U.S. senators -- the senators who cast conviction votes and disqualification votes in impeachment trials are directly elected by the voters in the 2028 Senate elections, including 33 Class II seats) | What is the filibuster? (the 60-vote cloture rule governs ordinary Senate legislation; Senate impeachment trials proceed under the Senate's impeachment rules, not the ordinary cloture rules -- Rule XI and the Impeachment Trial Clause give the Senate plenary authority over trial procedures, as confirmed in Nixon v. United States (1993)) | What is the pardon power? (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1; Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867); Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915); the 'except in Cases of Impeachment' exception to the pardon power is the constitutional link between the pardon and impeachment clauses -- the President may not pardon to prevent or undo the removal and disqualification that the House and Senate administer) | What is the 2028 election about?
Related questions
What is the impeachment power?
What did Nixon v. United States (1993) hold about Senate impeachment trial procedures?
What are 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors'?
What is the disqualification judgment and what vote threshold does it require?
How does the impeachment power affect the 2028 election?
Get the 2028 race by email
One short alert when the 2028 race actually changes - a candidate enters or drops out, the rules firm up, the polls move. No spam.
Related explainers
The political question doctrine is a judge-made rule of justiciability under which federal courts decline to adjudicate constitutional claims that have been committed by the Constitution's text to a coordinate branch of government, or that lack judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolution. The doctrine's constitutional foundation is separation of powers: federal courts, limited by Article III to cases and controversies, defer to Congress or the President on matters the Constitution commits to those branches. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), 6-2, with Justice Brennan writing for the Court, set out the canonical six-factor test: a political question exists when there is (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; (4) the impossibility of undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or (6) the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), held that the validity of a state's ratification of a constitutional amendment is a political question committed to Congress, which governed Congress's conclusive acceptance of the 27th Amendment in 1992. Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), held unanimously that the meaning of the Senate's sole power to 'try' impeachments is a political question committed to the Senate's unreviewable discretion. For 2028, the doctrine is relevant to any Section 3 enforcement litigation (Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. ___ (2024), left the enforcement mechanism question open), electoral-college challenges, and Senate impeachment trial procedures.
Executive privilege is a constitutional doctrine, recognized unanimously by the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (8-0, Chief Justice Burger writing, Justice Rehnquist recused), under which the President may assert a presumptive privilege to protect confidential presidential communications from compelled disclosure. The privilege is rooted in the separation of powers and the President's Article II functions, but the Court held it is not absolute: when a specific demonstrated need for materials in a criminal proceeding -- such as the grand jury subpoena for 64 Watergate tape recordings -- outweighs the general interest in presidential confidentiality, the privilege must yield. The Court ordered President Nixon to produce the tapes to the district court for in camera review, and Nixon announced his resignation on August 8, 1974. Two distinct privilege categories have since been recognized, most authoritatively in In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1997): the presidential communications privilege, rooted in Article II, covers documents authored by or solicited and received by the President and his immediate advisors exercising substantial independent authority, and receives strong protection; the deliberative process privilege, a common-law protection for pre-decisional and deliberative agency documents, can be overcome by a lower showing of need. In Cheney v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (7-2, Justice Kennedy writing, Ginsburg and Souter dissenting), the Court held that courts of appeals must carefully weigh separation of powers concerns before permitting discovery that would impose burdens on the executive branch in its exercise of constitutional functions, and remanded without requiring disclosure of Vice President Cheney's energy task force documents. The Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on the merits of an executive privilege claim asserted against a pure congressional subpoena; such disputes are typically resolved through negotiation, accommodation, or political pressure, with criminal contempt referrals (which the Department of Justice may decline to prosecute) and civil contempt suits available to Congress. For 2028, executive privilege structures debates about presidential records access under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, transition document demands, and congressional oversight of the incoming administration.
The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913, established the direct popular election of U.S. Senators. Before the 17th Amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures under Article I, Section 3 of the original Constitution. The amendment transferred that choice to the voters of each state. Several 2028 presidential candidates serve or have served as U.S. Senators elected directly by their states' voters under the 17th Amendment.
The filibuster is a tactic in the United States Senate by which senators can extend debate on a bill or nomination indefinitely, effectively blocking a final vote unless enough colleagues vote to end debate. Under Senate Rule XXII, invoking cloture -- the procedural vote to end debate -- requires 60 of the 100 senators on most legislation. Because the filibuster allows a minority of senators to delay or defeat a majority's agenda, it is one of the most consequential procedural features in American government. The cloture rule was adopted in 1917, lowered to 60 votes in 1975, and partially curtailed in 2013 and 2017 when the Senate eliminated the 60-vote threshold for executive nominations and Supreme Court nominations respectively. For 2028, the filibuster shapes what any administration and Senate majority can realistically enact without reaching 60 votes.
The pardon power is the President's constitutional authority, vested by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. The power applies only to federal offenses; it does not reach state criminal convictions or state criminal proceedings, which are governed exclusively by the pardon powers of the fifty state governors. The 'except in Cases of Impeachment' carve-out bars the President from using a pardon to prevent the House from impeaching, to abort a Senate trial, or to undo a disqualification judgment already entered by the Senate. In Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867), decided 5-4 with Justice Field writing for the majority, the Supreme Court described the power in the broadest terms: it extends to every offence known to the law and may be exercised at any time after the commission of the offense, whether before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment; its effect is to obliterate the offense itself, making the recipient as innocent in the eye of the law as if he had never committed the offense. In Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), decided unanimously with Justice McKenna writing, the Court held that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance of the pardon is legally essential to its effectiveness -- a recipient may therefore refuse a pardon and retain any legal privilege that would be lost by admitting the underlying offense. No federal court has ever ruled on whether the President may pardon himself; the question -- grounded in the principle that no person may be a judge in their own cause and in the Article II Section 3 Take Care Clause's requirement of faithful execution of the laws -- remains unresolved as a matter of constitutional law. For the 2028 election, pardon power debates will include the scope of prior-administration pardons, the constitutional status of any self-referential pardons, the federal-versus-state boundary, and whether Congress may impose oversight constraints on pardon decisions.
See the live 2028 candidate trackerAll 2028 election questions