Impeaching Paul Adam Engelmayer, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
- Bill Number
- H.Res. 145
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-03-26T08:06:41Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This resolution (H. Res. 145) aims to impeach Paul Adam Engelmayer, a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, for "high crimes and misdemeanors." It accuses him of abusing his judicial power by issuing rulings that allegedly interfere with executive branch authority, specifically related to access to Department of the Treasury records and systems. The resolution initiates the impeachment process by the House of Representatives, referring the matter to the Senate for trial and potential removal from office.
Key Provisions
- Article of Impeachment: Abuse of Power
The resolution presents a single article charging Judge Engelmayer with violating his oath of office by using his position for personal and political gain, showing bias and favoritism.
- Specific allegations include:
- Restraining President Trump and Secretary Bessent (likely referring to a Treasury Secretary) from accessing Treasury records, payment systems, or data containing personally identifiable or confidential financial information of payees.
- Restraining access to such systems by political appointees, special government employees, or those detailed from other federal agencies.
- It claims these actions prioritize personal and political affiliations over impartiality, interfere with the President's constitutional authority over the executive branch, and undermine the separation of powers.
- The resolution was introduced on February 21, 2025, by Representatives Crane, Davidson, Hamadeh, Luna, and Ogles, and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This resolution does not amend or create new laws. Instead, it invokes the existing constitutional impeachment process (Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution), which grants the House the sole power to impeach federal officers, including judges, for high crimes and misdemeanors. If the Senate convicts, it could result in removal from office but does not alter statutes or legal precedents.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Could disrupt operations at the Department of the Treasury by highlighting or escalating disputes over access to sensitive financial data, potentially affecting executive branch control and inter-branch relations.
- On Citizens: May erode public trust in the judiciary if perceived as politically motivated, or strengthen it if seen as upholding accountability; indirectly affects privacy of financial information held by the government.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though any perceived weakening of U.S. institutional stability could influence foreign perceptions of American governance.
- Broader effects include possible delays in judicial proceedings involving Treasury matters and heightened political scrutiny of federal judges.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Judge Paul Adam Engelmayer: Directly targeted for potential removal from his lifetime-appointed position.
- Executive Branch Officials: President Trump and Treasury Secretary Bessent, whose authority is cited as obstructed by the judge's rulings.
- Department of the Treasury and Federal Employees: Impacted by restrictions on data access, including political appointees and detailed personnel.
- Congress: House members initiating the process; Senate would conduct any trial.
- The Public and Litigants: Affected by claims of judicial bias, which could influence perceptions of fairness in cases involving government data or executive actions.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional Implications: Reinforces the impeachment clause (Article II, Section 4) for federal judges, emphasizing their removal for conduct undermining impartiality. It invokes separation of powers, arguing judicial overreach into executive functions, but could spark debates on the boundaries of judicial review (e.g., under Article III).
- Legal Implications: Alleges violations of the judicial oath to "faithfully and impartially" discharge duties; if successful, sets a precedent for impeaching judges over specific rulings perceived as politically biased, though impeachment is rare for judges (only 15 have been impeached in U.S. history).
- Political Implications: Highlights partisan tensions, as sponsors are associated with conservative viewpoints, potentially framing the judiciary as obstructive to executive priorities. Success or failure could polarize Congress and influence future appointments or judicial independence debates. The resolution's focus on a single judge's actions in a specific case underscores risks of politicizing the courts.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (12)
Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8], Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham [R-AZ-8], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7], Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10], Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14], Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-21: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-02-21: Submitted in House
Bill Versions
- Impeaching Paul Adam Engelmayer, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, for high crimes and misdemeanors. — issued 2025-02-21 — PDF (4 pages)