| Impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas | |
|---|---|
 The House of Representatives votes to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas | |
| Accused | Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary of Homeland Security) |
| Proponents | Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House of Representatives) |
| Date | February 13, 2024 (2024-02-13) – April 17, 2024 (2024-04-17) (2 months and 4 days) |
| Charges | Dereliction of duty,perjury,contempt of Congress |
| Cause | Mexico–United States border crisis |
| Congressional votes | |
| First vote in theU.S. House of Representatives | |
| Accusation | Failure to comply with Federal immigration laws and breaching the public trust |
| Votes in favor | 214 |
| Votes against | 216 |
| Present | 0 |
| Not voting | 1 |
| Result |  N Failed |
| Second vote in theU.S. House of Representatives | |
| Accusation | Failure to comply with Federal immigration laws and breaching the public trust |
| Votes in favor | 214 |
| Votes against | 213 |
| Present | 0 |
| Not voting | 4 |
| Result |  Y Approved |
| Vote in theU.S. Senate to dismiss Article I | |
| Accusation | Point of order that Article I — Failure to comply with Federal immigration laws, is unconstitutional and therefore out of order |
| Votes in favor | 51 |
| Votes against | 48 |
| Present | 1 |
| Not voting | 0 |
| Result | Y Approved; Article ruled unconstitutional and out of order |
| Vote in theU.S. Senate to dismiss Article II | |
| Accusation | Point of order that Article II — Breach of public trust, is unconstitutional and therefore out of order |
| Votes in favor | 51 |
| Votes against | 49 |
| Present | 0 |
| Not voting | 0 |
| Result | Y Approved; Article ruled unconstitutional and out of order |
On January 28, 2024,House Republicans indicated their intention to move forward with twoarticles of impeachment againstAlejandro Mayorkas, theUnited States Secretary of Homeland Security, alleging "willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law" in regards to federal immigration laws and breach of the public trust.[1] On January 31, Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee approved the articles along party lines for referral to the full House.[2][3] Mayorkas is the second Cabinet member in history, and first sinceSecretary of WarWilliam W. Belknap in 1876, to be impeached.[4]
A full House vote on February 6 to impeach failed to pass in a 214–216 vote, with four HouseRepublicans joining the minorityDemocratic Party in voting against the impeachment resolution. Mayorkas was impeached in a second vote on February 13, on a 214–213 vote, with three House Republicans voting "no".
On April 16, the articles of impeachment were delivered to the Senate. The next day, the Senate dismissed the accusations by agreeing to apoint of order that the articles of impeachment did not comply with theUnited States Constitution because they did not "allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor".
On November 23, 2020, President-electJoe Biden announced his plan to nominate Alejandro Mayorkas, who had previously served in theObama Administration as Director ofU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and later as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, to be Secretary of Homeland Security.[5][6] Mayorkas was confirmed by theUnited States Senate in a 56–43 vote.[7] This made Mayorkas's appointment one of the most contested of all Biden's cabinet nominees.[8]
In August 2021, CongressmanAndy Biggs introduced a resolution to impeach Mayorkas. It was referred to theHouse Committee on the Judiciary and saw no further action.[9]
Ahead of the2022 United States House elections, several Republican members of theU.S. House of Representatives expressed support for the idea of impeaching Mayorkas if their party won a House majority.[10] After Republicans won narrow control of the House for the118th United States Congress, several impeachment resolutions were introduced and referred to committees without further action, including ones introduced byPat Fallon in January 2023,[11]Andy Biggs in February 2023,[12]Marjorie Taylor Greene in May 2023,[13] andClay Higgins in June 2023.[14]
On November 9, 2023, Greene filed a motion to impeach Mayorkas, citing a dereliction of duty and saying he "failed to maintain operational control of the [Southern] border".[15] The motion to impeach failed to pass on November 13, with the House voting 209–201 to refer the resolution to theHouse Homeland Security Committee. Eight Republicans joined all Democrats in blocking the measure from passing outright.[16][17]
The resolution with thearticles of impeachment against Mayorkas was introduced to the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on November 13, 2023. An amended resolution was reported from theHouse Committee on Homeland Security on February 3, 2024.[18]
Article 1 of the impeachment alleges that Mayorkas "willfully and systematically refused to comply with Federal immigration laws".[19] The article focuses on theImmigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The act requires that migrants be detained while waiting for an asylum decision.[20]
Article 2 of the impeachment alleges that Mayorkas "breached the public trust" by lying to Congress and hindering the House Republican-led investigation into the Department of Homeland Security.[21]
On February 6, 2024, the House of Representatives voted to not impeach Mayorkas with 216 voting against and 214 voting in favor.[22] Four Republican members broke party ranks to vote against the impeachment:Ken Buck (CO-04),Mike Gallagher (WI-08),Tom McClintock (CA-05), andBlake Moore (UT-01).Steve Scalise (LA-01), theHouse majority leader, was absent for the vote due to being treated forblood cancer.[23] RepresentativeAl Green of Texas was the final member to arrive, casting his no vote to tie 215–215 from a wheelchair while wearing hospitalscrubs afterabdominal surgery.[24][25] Moore changed his vote to no shortly before the Speaker called the vote, allowing Republicans to vote again on the impeachment in the future as part of amotion to reconsider.[26]
| Party | Yes | No | Not voting | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 214 | 4 | 1 | |
| Democratic | — | 212 | — | |
| Percentage | 49.8% | 50.2% | — | |
| Total votes | 214 | N216 | 1 | |
Following the first vote, Homeland Security ChairMark Green (TN-07) said that Republicans intended to vote to impeach Mayorkas a second time when Scalise returned.[27] On February 9, theHouse Republican Caucus said they would vote again to impeach Mayorkas on Tuesday, February 13.[28] On February 13, 2024, the House voted 214–213 to impeach Mayorkas.Ken Buck,Mike Gallagher, andTom McClintock again opposed the effort by their conference.[29] Four representatives missed the vote. DemocratJudy Chu missed the vote due to contractingCOVID-19, while the three others were Floridian Representatives who hadflight delays: RepublicansBrian Mast andMaría Salazar, along with DemocratLois Frankel.[30]
| Party | Yes | No | Not voting | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 214 | 3 | 2 | |
| Democratic | — | 210 | 2 | |
| Percentage | 50.1% | 49.9% | — | |
| Total votes | Y214 | 213 | 4 | |
_17.png)
_02_(cropped).png)
The Senate began its impeachment proceedings on April 16, 2024. Theimpeachment managers wereMark Green,Michael McCaul,Andy Biggs,Ben Cline,Andrew Garbarino,Michael Guest,Harriet Hageman,Clay Higgins,Laurel Lee,August Pfluger, andMarjorie Taylor Greene. Under Senate rules, theimpeachment trial must begin within one legislative day.[31]
The trial officially began on April 17.[32]Patty Murray (thepresident pro tempore of the Senate) presided.[33] After Senate Republicans rejected a time agreement proposed bySenate Majority LeaderChuck Schumer, which would have allowed for a limited amount of debate on the impeachment and set up a vote for a full trial, Schumer made apoint of order that neither article of impeachment alleged "conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor" as required by the Constitution for an impeachment, and that they should have therefore been ruled out of order.[34][35] In response, Republicans introduced motions to debate the impeachment articles in aclosed session,adjourn the trial until April 30, and table Schumer's motion to table to the first article of impeachment. All three Republican motions failed in party-line votes, with all three Senate Independents voting with Democrats.[36][37]
The Senate voted to take well the Schumer point of order for the first article of impeachment in a 51–48–1 vote. All Democrats and Independents voted for the point of order, while all but one Republican voted against it;Lisa Murkowski voted "present".[38]
| Party | Yes | No | Present | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 48 | — | — | |
| Republican | — | 48 | 1 | |
| Independent | 3 | — | — | |
| Percentage | 51.5% | 48.5% | — | |
| Total votes | Y51 | 48 | 1 | |
The Senate voted to take well the Schumer point of order for the second article of impeachment in a 51–49 vote. All Democrats and Independents voted for the point of order and all Republicans voted against it.[39]
| Party | Yes | No | Present | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 48 | — | — | |
| Republican | — | 49 | — | |
| Independent | 3 | — | — | |
| Percentage | 51% | 49% | — | |
| Total votes | Y51 | 49 | — | |
 | This articlecontainstoo many or overly lengthy quotations. Please helpsummarise the quotations. Consider transferring direct quotations toWikiquote or excerpts toWikisource.(June 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Constitutional legal scholars asserted Republicans were using impeachment to address immigration policy disputes rather than forhigh crimes and misdemeanors, of which there was no evidence.[40]Doris Meissner, who was the Commissioner of theImmigration and Naturalization Service during theClinton Administration, the predecessor to the Department of Homeland Security, argued: "This really is about policy differences and politics. These arguments that he’s violated the law and violated court orders are asmokescreen."[41] Legal scholar and law professorJonathan Turley commented that the impeachment lacked a "cognizable basis" and that the inquiry had failed to show "conduct by the secretary that could be viewed as criminal or impeachable".[42] Frank Bowman of the University of Missouri School of Law, said: "Put simply, on one hand, even if successfully impeaching and removing a Cabinet officer could change the policy of a presidential administration, using impeachment for that purpose would be contrary to America’s constitutional design."[43] Former DHS secretaryMichael Chertoff, a Republican, wrote an opinion piece inThe Wall Street Journal that "Republicans in the House should drop this impeachment charade and work with Mr. Mayorkas to deliver for the American people."[44]
The conservativeWall Street Journal editorial board wrote an editorial opposing the impeachment, arguing "impeaching Mr. Mayorkas won't change enforcement policy and is a bad precedent that will open the gates to more cabinet impeachments by both parties", adding "a policy dispute doesn't qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor."[45]The New York Times,The Washington Post, andCNN variously characterized the first failed vote as a "stunning rebuke", a "calamitous miscalculation", and a "story of a House in utter disarray".[46][47][48][49][24]