As interesting, complex, and important as are the constitutional issues that reach the U.S. Supreme Court, there are far more at the state level. But never in American history has there been a constitutional conundrum quite like what’s going on in West Virginia right now.
Last month, the West Virginia legislature voted to impeach the entire state Supreme Court on the grounds that they misappropriated state funds in various ways. That was startling enough. But then the West Virginia Supreme Court itself decided to fight back. That’s not a new thing in West Virginia—in 1997, the State Supreme Court ruled in a dispute over parking spaces for court personnel that “courts have inherent authority to require resources such as sufficient funds for operating expenses,” and therefore that county judges could override state budgetary restrictions. But this time, the Court went much further. It issued a unanimous decision* (written by substitute justices, since the justices themselves are being impeached and had to recuse themselves), holding that the state legislature has no authority to impeach under these circumstances.
First question: does the state Supreme Court have jurisdiction over impeachments? Impeachment is different from a criminal trial, because it’s a political, rather than a legal, proceeding, and it doesn’t impose criminal penalties; it just removes a person from office. That’s normally considered an exclusively legislative matter, in which the courts have no say. But the West Virginia Supreme Court decided otherwise. Here’s their reasoning:
Comments policy