Samuel Chase was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court who was impeached in 1804 and tried in 1805. His case is one of the earliest federal impeachment proceedings and is treated in the sources as a key precedent for understanding the scope of the constitutional clause on high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Early Impeachment Precedents
In a discussion of impeachment history, Gene Healy identified the first three impeachment cases as the place to look for precedent, occurring in the roughly fifteen years after ratification. These were Senator William Blount in 1797, federal judge John Pickering in 1803, and, the next year, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Chase. Healy noted that these cases involved contemporaries of actual ratifiers of the Constitution, some of whom had been involved in drafting it, making the period one in which the Constitution was recent in living memory. Low Tweets and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment Debate Through the Lens of History and the Constitution (2018)
Healy observed that of these three cases, only one involved anything that could even arguably be called a crime. The second case, that of Judge John Pickering—the first to result in a conviction and removal of a federal officer—involved a defendant who was not guilty of any crime; Pickering was impeached and removed for showing up to work drunk and ranting like a maniac from the bench. According to Healy, this indicates how broad the interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors was, demonstrating unfitness for high office, which could be shown in any number of ways. Low Tweets and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment Debate Through the Lens of History and the Constitution (2018)
The Chase Impeachment
Chase was impeached in 1804 and tried in 1805, escaping removal by four votes. Healy described the bulk of his offenses as being an openly partisan Federalist from the bench. Chase gave a charge to a grand jury in which he ranted against Jeffersonian Republicans and seemed to condemn the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and in various other trials had shown real partiality against small-r Republican defendants. Healy emphasized that none of this was a crime, but it was thought by the Jeffersonians to have demonstrated Chase’s unfitness to be a Justice of the Supreme Court. Low Tweets and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment Debate Through the Lens of History and the Constitution (2018)
In a separate episode, John Rothmann also discussed Chase’s impeachment, noting that it occurred in 1805 and that Aaron Burr presided at his trial. Rothmann characterized the whole thing as political, stating that Thomas Jefferson wanted Chase removed from office and that this was the whole issue. Chase was not removed. Withholding Judgment on Impeachment with John Rothmann (2020)
Impeachment as a Political Tool
The two episodes frame the Chase case within a broader debate about whether impeachment is a narrow technical remedy directed at violations of criminal law or a broader instrument for addressing unfitness. Healy argued that the early cases, including Chase’s, show that impeachment is not a narrow technical remedy directed against violations of the criminal law; just the opposite, it can be directed against anything that arguably shows unfitness to serve. Low Tweets and Misdemeanors: The Impeachment Debate Through the Lens of History and the Constitution (2018)
Rothmann’s treatment of the Chase case emphasizes its political character. He stated that the whole thing was political and that Jefferson wanted Chase removed. This aligns with Healy’s account of Chase’s offenses being partisan conduct rather than crime, though the two guests frame the significance differently: Healy uses Chase to illustrate the breadth of impeachable conduct, while Rothmann uses it to illustrate impeachment as a political weapon. Withholding Judgment on Impeachment with John Rothmann (2020)
Across episodes
The excerpts show no development in the treatment of Samuel Chase across the two episodes. The 2018 episode, through Gene Healy, presents Chase as part of a set of early precedents establishing a broad interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors. The 2020 episode, through John Rothmann, presents Chase as an instance of impeachment used for political purposes, with Aaron Burr presiding and Jefferson seeking removal. Both episodes note that Chase was not removed from office, but neither excerpt indicates that the later treatment revises or builds upon the earlier one; they are independent references to the same historical case.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state the state or city of Chase’s birth, the specific articles of impeachment brought against him, the names of the managers or his defense counsel, or the precise vote tally beyond the four-vote margin. They do not describe the legal arguments made at his trial or the constitutional grounds on which his acquittal rested. The excerpts also do not cover Chase’s earlier career, his appointment to the Court, or his later years on the bench.