President Donald Trump said Wednesday he’ll go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court “if the partisan Dems” ever try to impeach him.
But Trump’s strategy could run into a roadblock: the high court itself, which said in 1993 that the framers of the U.S. Constitution didn’t intend for the courts to have the power to review impeachment proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that impeachment and removal from office is Congress’ duty alone.
“I DID NOTHING WRONG,” Trump tweeted. He said not only are there no “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” one of the bases for impeachment outlined in the Constitution, “there are no Crimes by me at all.”
He alleged Democrats committed crimes and said they’re looking “to Congress as last hope!” because “We waited for Mueller and WON.” That was a reference to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
The Mueller report did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but revealed that Trump tried to seize control of the Russia investigation. In the report, released last week, Mueller laid out multiple episodes in which Trump directed other people to influence or curtail the investigation after the special counsel’s 2017 appointment, but he said those efforts “were mostly unsuccessful,” largely because “the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”
Trump’s threat to “head to the U.S. Supreme Court” would seem to face an uphill battle. In his 1993 opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that a federal judge’s appeal of his impeachment was not reviewable by courts. He said the framers of the Constitution “did not intend for the courts to have the power to review impeachment proceedings.”
If the courts were allowed to review impeachments, Rehnquist wrote, it could plunge the country into “months, or perhaps years, of chaos.”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn, said this week in a statement that Mueller’s report, even in redacted form, “outlines substantial evidence that President Trump engaged in obstruction and other abuses.”
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has urged divided Democrats to focus on fact-finding rather than the prospect of any impeachment proceedings after the damning details of Mueller’s report.
Related Stories
‹
![]()
PPP: Americans Opposed On Healthcare And HB2, Split On ImpeachmentWhen it comes to healthcare, Americans are surprisingly united against the GOP. (On Neil Gorsuch, we're unsurprisingly apathetic.)

Supreme Court Allows Trump To Deport Venezuelans Under Wartime Law, but Only After Judges’ ReviewThe Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration can use a wartime law to deport Venezuelan migrants, but they must get a court hearing first.

UNC Trustees Talk Affirmative Action, Accessibility at First Meeting of 2023-24UNC Board of Trustees officially barred use of 'race, sex, color or ethnicity' in admissions, complying with Supreme Court case decision.

Fierce Protests Have Been Rocking Israel for Months. What’s Fueling Them?Written by JULIA FRANKEL Oceans of Israeli flags, steady drumbeats, cries of “Democracy!” Water cannons, police on horseback, protesters dragged off the ground. For seven straight months, tens of thousands of Israelis have taken to the streets in the most sustained and intense demonstrations the country has ever seen. The protesters are part of a […]

Top Stories of 2022: Supreme Court Abortion Ruling Sparks Concern, Fear and BacklashThe Supreme Court's decision striking down Roe v. Wade was a defining moment of 2022 - and so was the local defense of abortion rights.
![]()
House Republicans Who Voted to Impeach Trump Face PrimariesWritten by MICHELLE L. PRICE Three Republican U.S. House members who voted to impeach Donald Trump over the Jan. 6 insurrection are being challenged in Tuesday’s primary elections by rivals endorsed by the former president. The primaries for Reps. Peter Meijer, Jaime Herrera Beutler and Dan Newhouse are the biggest test yet for GOP incumbents who broke with Trump […]

'Unprecedented' But Unsurprising: UNC Law Prof on the Supreme CourtUNC law professor Michael Gerhardt discusses how to understand (and maybe reform) the Supreme Court after last month's abortion ruling.

UNC Expert: SCOTUS Judges Focus On 'Fulfilling Their Party's Agenda'After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, many began to question its effect on the law, women and healthcare. But others started questioning how the court even works.

'You're Not Alone': Compass Center Reaches Out to Domestic Violence Victims After Supreme Court RulingThe Supreme Court's abortion decision has raised concern for domestic violence victims, but the Compass Center is reaching out locally.

Unusually Agreeable Justices End Term With Conservative WinsWritten by MARK SHERMAN and JESSICA GRESKO An unusually agreeable Supreme Court term ended with conservative-driven decisions on voting rights and charitable-donor disclosures that offered a glimpse of what the coming years of the right’s dominance could look like for the nation’s highest court. The court began its summer recess with an already consequential list […]
›