Senator Collins’ Statement on Impeachment Trial Jurisdiction

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senator Susan Collins issued the following statement after voting against a motion that argued that the Senate does not have jurisdiction over the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. 

“Today the Senate was asked to decide whether this body has the constitutional jurisdiction to hold an impeachment trial of Donald Trump now that he is no longer President of the United States. While the Constitution does not explicitly address Congress’s jurisdiction when the subject of impeachment is a former president – or any former officer – its text and purpose as applied to the facts in this matter support the conclusion that the trial should proceed.

“The question of Senate jurisdiction should start with the text of the Constitution itself.  The impeachment process is described in Article I, which delineates the respective powers of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Section 2 plainly states that the House ‘shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ In this matter, there is no dispute that impeachment occurred before former President Trump’s term expired and, therefore, there is no dispute that the House had jurisdiction to impeach him.

“What is at issue is whether the impeachment trial can occur in the Senate now that former President Trump is no longer in office.  Again, I look to the text of Article I. Section 3 states that ‘the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.’  As former federal Circuit Court Judge Michael McConnell has observed, the key word here is ‘all.’  Sections 2 and 3 read together lead to the inescapable conclusion that if the House presents the Senate with a valid impeachment article, the Senate has jurisdiction to conduct the trial.

“Some have argued that such an interpretation would put all former presidents, vice presidents, and office holders dating back to the Washington Administration at risk of being impeached and convicted.  But the facts in this matter do not require such a sweeping conclusion.  By asserting its jurisdiction over this trial, the Senate is simply ruling that a president who was impeached while still in office can be tried after he is no longer in office. Nothing more.

“The former President’s attorneys argue that the Senate does not have jurisdiction to conduct a trial because the penalty prescribed for conviction under Article II, Section 4, is removal from office.  Because former President Trump cannot be removed, they argue that the Constitution requires he not be tried.  But Article I, Section 4, authorizes the Senate to impose the penalty of permanent disqualification from holding office in the future if it chooses to do so.  And, notably, a vote on whether or not to disqualify can only be taken after conviction, at which point any defendant would have been removed and no longer an office holder.

“If the defense’s argument were to be followed to its logical conclusion, it would lead to a constitutional absurdity -- the Senate would have the sole power to apply the disqualification penalty, but it would never have jurisdiction to do so.  If the Senate were unable to consider disqualification after a president is no longer in office, the second penalty would lose its meaning.  A more sensible reading of Article I, Section 4, is that both punishments – removal and disqualification – are equally significant, and therefore the Senate has jurisdiction in this matter.

“For all the reasons I have set forth, I believe that the Senate must exercise jurisdiction and begin its impeachment proceedings.”

###