Since the Justices can pretty much declare any ruling they like, imagine that 5 justices got together and committed a murder in their courtroom. They would declare any warrants out for their arrest unconstitutional, and when Congress tried to impeach them, they would declare the impeachment proceedings invalid for legal technicalities.
How would, exactly, the government resolve this situation?
The justices would simply be ignored and locked up. Congress and the President would simply invent a legal justification for doing so. They would be tried and sent to jail.
Such a scenario seems odd, in large part because the Supreme Court has accumulated a large amount of respect over the years. At this point, it seems unthinkable that the Supreme Court would be ignored.
But courts do get ignored now and then over issues where the court had a much better argument to be taken seriously.
Nonsensical scenario.
The Supreme Court can only hear cases that are brought to them through codified processes. They can’t make random rulings on laws. An arrest warrant isn’t even a law. It can’t be declared unconstitutional. They’d be arrested and tried in a normal court, just like any other inhabitant of the United States. If they are impeached, nobody would listen to any interpretations of the legality of it they made. I’m not sure there is even a procedure for the Court to rule on the legalities of an impeachment.
BTW, The Supreme Court requires six people to form a quorum. No ruling made by five people would be legal in the first place.
Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction over the court building? Because if it doesn’t, then they’d presumably have to wait for the federal district court to litigate the matter before they could intervene.
When the Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester in 1832, Andrew Jackson supposedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Whether he said this or not, it reinforces the notion that nothing forces the other two branches to bow to the Supreme Court other than respect for the constitution.
Lol, well who is the final arbiter of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction?
I mean, in theory it would be very easy for the Supreme Court to solve that problem.
As a practical matter, the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army backing it up so its authority derives from the respect it has as an institution.
More from the respect afforded the constitution, really.
As for jurisdiction, I’d say it’s likely that the DC Metropolitan Police hold jurisdiction. So presumably the justices go all ‘murder on the orient express’ on some poor bastard in plain sight, they’d be subject to arrest by any random responding cop. At that point they’d be fed into the DC judicial system for arraignment and trial.
The Constitution, actually:
The Supreme Court would not have any say over a murder case unless it had already been through a lower court.
The only way to “solve that problem” would be to pass a Constitutional Amendment. The Court could not declare that it had original jurisdiction over a case where it did not and expect that anyone would take the decision seriously, any more than if they declared tomorrow everyone had to wear their underwear outside their clothes.
I don’t think Supreme Court justices are subject to impeachment. The Constitution states that once appointed their terms are for life ***‘during good conduct’ ***or something to that effect. The idea being that if one of them gets serious dementia but won’t step down the other justices can vote to remove them.
The odds of five justices forming an unconstitutional ‘cabal’ as it were is highly, ***highly ***unlikely. But let’s say five of them were possessed by alien pod people or something. Not sure what the official legal course of action would be, but essentially if they lost the ‘confidence’ of the rest of the govt their actions & decisions would just be ignored. It would cause a general Constitutional crisis but I think that if the Congress, President, Vice President, and other Justices were all united they could successfully have the wacky Justices ‘removed’ somehow without too much difficulty.
Well, lower federal judges are subject to impeachment, agreed?
And the Constitution does not seem to distinguish between Supreme Court judges and other judges in terms of impeachment:
Not that it really matters, because our hypothetical Gang of 5 could in theory rule that they are not subject to impeachment. Of course such a ruling would be ignored, but still it theoretically could be made.
Agreed.
Of course they are. One Supreme Court judge has been impeached, Samuel Chase, but he was acquitted by the Senate. Federal judges can be impeached for legal or ethical violations. I think murder would definitely qualify.
Where did this idea that Supreme Court Justices can vote to expel each other come from?
You also had Justice Abe Fortas being forced to resign in the early 1970s over a $20,000 fee from a Wall Street financier. My memory is that if he hadn’t, he would have been impeached and convicted. Lots of people from both sides of the aisle were upset that a top attorney-turned-justice was a crook.
Yeah, now that I think about it I don’t think there is any official provision for the other justices ‘voting him out’ like on a board of directors or something. However, I think there’s an unofficial understanding that if a SC justice starts to ‘behave inappropriately’ the first course of action will be for all of them to meet in closed chambers and make it clear to their fellow judge that it’s time for he/she to retire or further action will become imminent…
In the early years of the republic, there was a lot of debate on whether the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review. In Marbury v. Madison, the Court sort of took it itself. Since it has (for the most part) restrained itself and used its power in a responsible manner, everyone has consented to this ultimate authority.
If it starts murdering people and refusing impeachment, that respect would likely wane a bit. 
As I understand it, “during good behavior” means “unless they’re impeached and removed.”
Since this is GQ and I’ve never heard such a thing, could you provide a cite?
The justices would most certainly be arrested.
Could they not then have their lawyer file a habeas petition, which most certainly would be denied. Then their lawyer could file an appeal of the denial and when that is denied, he could petition the Supreme Court and five Justices could vote to hear the appeal. (It only takes four Justices to vote to hear a case.) The Justices could refuse to recuse themselves and vote to grant a writ of habeas corpus, no?
Or even simpler, I believe the Supreme Court has the right to grant petition for an extraordinary writ of habeas corpus.
And I do see the problem of how the Justices are going to vote on all these motions unless they have been let out of jail on bail.
Marbury v. Madison addressed another important issue: recusal. John Marshall was a direct participant in the case and arguably should have recused himself from the hearing. But he decided he could impartially rule on the case and did so. This established the principle that Supreme Court justices can set their own standards for recusal.
There have been stranger things happen than the SCOTUS to attempt to murder someone in open court;
How many ever thought giving the House the sole authority to originate spending bills would result in a small group of loons the ability to bankrupt the country?
Even stranger: who imagined that such a scenario would actually come to pass?
But yeah, even in this bizarre political landscape, blatant murder would still be stretching it.
Give it another 10 years at current rate, and you just might see the Court grant (not going to try to spell it) just to get a despised attorney in the room, then find him in Contempt and lock him up for life + 99