HASTINGS v. U.S. Civ. A. No. 91-1713.
837 F.Supp. 3 (1993)
Alcee L. HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
October 21, 1993.
D. Scott Barash, Sarah L. Wilson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Morgan John Frankel, Michael Davidson, Office of Senate Legal Counsel, Washington, DC, for defendants.
SPORKIN, District Judge.
This case is before this Court on remand from the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Nixon v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C.Cir.1993). Plaintiff in this case, Alcee Hastings, an impeached federal district court judge, claims that the United States Senate used improper procedures during his impeachment trial. See Hastings v. United States,
The legal issue posed in Nixon is identical to that in Hastings, namely whether the Senate's use of a committee of twelve senators, pursuant to Senate Rule XI
Nixon brought suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that his impeachment conviction was void. The district
The Supreme Court held that the power to try impeachments is granted by the Constitution to the Senate, and the Senate's use of that power presents nonjusticiable political questions. Nixon v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). Thus, the Senate's procedures for trying an impeached individual cannot be subject to review by the judiciary. Notwithstanding concerns about fundamental fairness, the Senate may appoint a committee comprised of less than the full Senate to hear evidence in an impeachment proceeding and report such evidence to the full Senate.
It may be worth noting that the facts involved in this case are different from those in Nixon. Plaintiff in this case was indicted in 1981 on charges of conspiracy to solicit and accept a bribe. On February 4, 1983, he was acquitted by a jury on all criminal charges brought against him. Six years later, in 1989, the Senate voted to convict plaintiff on eight articles of impeachment which substantially paralleled the charges on which he was acquitted in his criminal trial. In effect, the Senate was called upon to conduct a de novo trial of the plaintiff based upon the same facts which a jury concluded were not criminal. Instead of "trying" Judge Hastings before the full Senate, under Senate Rule XI testimony against Judge Hastings was received by a committee of twelve senators. In the final vote by the full Senate, less than two-thirds of the twelve senators comprising this committee voted to convict plaintiff on any of the articles of impeachment.
The Supreme Court's holding in Nixon precludes plaintiff from pursuing his case further. Given the distinction in facts and outcomes between this case and Nixon, it is indeed unfortunate that Hastings did not precede Nixon. As strongly as this Court believes that Judge Hastings' fundamental rights were violated, the Court recognizes that the Nixon decision compels that Judge Hastings' case be dismissed.
This Court believes that the events surrounding plaintiff's impeachment and conviction are an unfortunate chapter in the history of this country. A jury of plaintiff's peers voted unanimously to acquit him of all criminal charges in a trial presided over by one of this nation's ablest jurists.
Even though this court is powerless to afford Judge Hastings any relief his case will have considerable historical significance and perhaps some day, after a dispassionate and non-political review of the case, this nation will reconsider the error perpetrated and provide Judge Hastings with the vindication he deserves, a small part of which he has already received by his recent election to Congress. Plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed.
This Court having reconsidered this matter in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 732, 122 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993) concludes that plaintiff's claims cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is this 21 day of October, 1993
ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied.
- No Cases Found