Are US Senate impeachment convictions reviewable by the Supreme Court
<p>Alan Dershowwitz argues that a conviction of any President by the US Senate would be unconstitutional under certain circumstances. Please see his book and his television interviews for those certain circumstances that he argues would create a unconstitutional conviction.</p>

<p>However the circumstances that he puts forward are <strong>not</strong> what prompts me to ask the question above.  </p>

<p>Generally US citizens expect the judiciary to be the arbiter of constitutionality, with the US Supreme Court to be the <strong>final</strong> arbiter of in the event of an appeal. So, are US Senate impeachment convictions reviewable by the judiciary and or the Supreme Court</p>

<p>In the event that the answer to the title question is "yes", have any impeachment convictions been reviewed by the Supreme Court?</p>

<p>The only relevant case heard by SCOTUS is <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/" rel="noreferrer">Nixon v. US</a>, 506 U.S. 224, where a federal judge was tried and convicted for actual crimes, but would not resign his position so continued to draw his salary. The key legal question was whether the matter is "justiciable" (meaning, not a political matter but a legal matter). Nixon's argument was that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause, and the court held that the question (more specifically what it means to "try") is nonjusticiable. White &amp; Blackmun, and Souter, wrote concurring opinions (which might be called on in a subsequent impeachment case) that reminds the reader (and future court) what was not part of the holding of the court, and what might therefore allow future impeachment review. White writes</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Court is of the view that the Constitution forbids us even to
  consider his contention. I find no such prohibition and would
  therefore reach the merits of the claim. I concur in the judgment
  because the Senate fulfilled its constitutional obligation to "try"
  petitioner.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>He observes that </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the Senate has very wide discretion in specifying impeachment trial
  procedures and because it is extremely unlikely that the Senate would
  abuse its discretion and insist on a procedure that could not be
  deemed a trial by reasonable judges.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I would prefer not to announce an unreviewable discretion in the
  Senate to ignore completely the constitutional direction to "try"
  impeachment cases. When asked at oral argument whether that direction
  would be satisfied if, after a House vote to impeach, the Senate,
  without any procedure whatsoever, unanimously found the accused guilty
  of being "a bad guy," counsel for the United States answered that the
  Government's theory "leads me to answer that question yes." Tr. of
  Oral Arg. 51. Especially in light of this advice from the Solicitor
  General, I would not issue an invitation to the Senate to find an
  excuse, in the name of other pressing business, to be dismissive of
  its critical role in the impeachment process.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Souter in his opinion states that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>One can, nevertheless, envision different and unusual circumstances
  that might justify a more searching review of impeachment proceedings.
  If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the
  integrity of its results, convicting, say, upon a coin toss, or upon a
  summary determination that an officer of the United States was simply"
  'a bad guy,'", judicial interference might well be appropriate. In
  such circumstances, the Senate's action might be so far beyond the
  scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on
  the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the
  prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In other words, review of an impeachment is largely but not entirely off the table, at least until SCOTUS declares that impeachments are completely unreviewable, no matter what, period (unlikely to ever happen).</p>

<p>That the supreme court can declare laws unconstitutional follows from its position as the court of last appeal, the highest authority within the judiciary.  The court has ruled that the constitution's grant to the houses of congress of the "sole" power to impeach and to try impeachments means that the houses' acts in those functions are not reviewable by the courts.</p>

<p>The answer to the question, therefore, is <em>no.</em>  US Senate impeachment convictions are not reviewable by the Supreme Court.</p>

us-constitution impeachment us-senate united-states