Good Behavior Clause: Keeping Judges Impartial

The Good Behavior Clause, as outlined in Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution, states that federal judges hold their offices during good behavior. The meaning of the clause has been debated, with some arguing that it denotes an alternative standard of removal for federal judges beyond high crimes and misdemeanours, while others claim that it simply clarifies that federal judges retain their office for life unless removed through a proper constitutional mechanism. The modern view of Congress appears to be that good behavior does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct. Nevertheless, the Good Behavior Clause plays a crucial role in protecting the independence of the judiciary and safeguarding litigants' rights to impartial judges.

Explore related products

Good Behaviour (New York Review Books Classics)

$16.69 $17.95

Peter Claus and the Naughty List

$23.31

Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science

$13.17 $21.95

Tooth Fairy

$3.79

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$239.4 $359

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$305

The Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement

The Good Behavior Clause, outlined in Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution, states that federal judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour". This clause has been the subject of long-standing debate, with various interpretations of its meaning and implications.

One interpretation is that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal due to congressional disagreement. This interpretation suggests that the clause ensures judicial independence and prevents judges from being removed from office simply because their legal or political opinions differ from those of Congress. The clause, in this view, acts as a safeguard against the concentration of power by a single branch of government, preserving the separation of powers.

This interpretation of the Good Behavior Clause holds that judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction for high crimes or misdemeanors. This process is outlined in various articles and clauses of the Constitution, including Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, and Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7. The Good Behavior Clause, therefore, sets a standard for the removal of federal judges, requiring more than just political or ideological differences with Congress.

However, there are other perspectives on the meaning and implications of the Good Behavior Clause. Some argue that "good behaviour" establishes an additional ground for the removal of federal judges beyond impeachment. In this view, Congress may establish mechanisms to determine whether a judge has forfeited their office through misbehavior, even if it does not rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. This interpretation gives Congress more flexibility in removing judges but has been rejected by some scholars and by modern Congress itself.

The ambiguity of the phrase "good behaviour" has prompted discussions about the role of Congress in defining this standard. Some argue that Congress has the authority to pass a bill or statutes to clarify what constitutes "good behaviour". However, others counter that if the Founders intended for Congress to define this term, it would have been explicitly stated in the Constitution. The debate over the meaning of "good behaviour" and the role of Congress in interpreting it remains unresolved.

It does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct

The interpretation of the Good Behavior Clause has been a subject of longstanding debate. The modern view of Congress is that "good behaviour" does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct. In other words, the Good Behavior Clause indicates that judges are not appointed to their seats for set terms and cannot be removed at will. Removing a federal judge requires impeachment and conviction for a high crime or misdemeanour.

The Good Behavior Clause does not delineate a standard for impeachment and removal for federal judges. However, the history of impeachments in the United States might indicate that the range of conduct meriting removal differs between judges and executive branch officials due to the distinct nature of each office. The meaning of "good behaviour" is not clear, and Congress has not been given explicit power to clarify it.

Some have argued that the phrase denotes an alternative standard of removal for federal judges beyond "high crimes and misdemeanours" that normally may give rise to the impeachment of federal officers. However, others have rejected this notion, claiming that the terms were interchangeable for the Framers. They interpret the "good behaviour" phrase to mean that federal judges retain their office for life unless they are removed via a proper constitutional mechanism.

The Good Behavior Clause also serves the essential purpose of protecting the independence of the judiciary and protecting litigants' rights to have claims adjudicated by an impartial judge free from the influence of another branch of government. The clause bars congressional attempts to eliminate the role of constitutional courts by transferring jurisdiction to non-Article III courts, which guards against the aggrandizement of power by one branch of government over another.

Judges are not appointed to their seats for set terms and cannot be removed at will

The Good Behavior Clause, as outlined in Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution, states that federal judges hold their offices during "good behaviour". This clause has been the subject of much debate, with varying interpretations.

One perspective on the Good Behavior Clause is that it indicates judges are not appointed to their seats for set terms and cannot be removed at will. In other words, federal judges hold their positions for life unless they are impeached and convicted of a high crime or misdemeanour. This interpretation suggests that the Good Behavior Clause protects the independence of the judiciary and safeguards litigants' rights to have their claims adjudicated by an impartial judge, free from the influence of other branches of government.

However, the exact meaning of "good behaviour" remains unclear, and some argue that it establishes a standard for the removal of federal judges beyond "high crimes and misdemeanours". This interpretation suggests that Congress may remove judges for "misbehaviour" that falls short of a high crime or misdemeanour, such as through statutes or other mechanisms.

The modern view of Congress, however, appears to be that "good behaviour" does not create an independent standard for impeachable conduct. Instead, it may be interpreted simply to mean that federal judges retain their positions for life unless removed through the proper constitutional mechanism of impeachment.

Despite the ongoing debate, the Good Behavior Clause plays a crucial role in shaping the tenure and removal of federal judges, ensuring they are protected from removal due to congressional disagreement with their legal or political opinions.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$298.74

The meaning of good behaviour has been debated, with no definitive resolution

The meaning of "good behaviour" has been the subject of long-standing debate, with no definitive resolution. Some have argued that the phrase denotes an alternative standard of removal for federal judges beyond "high crimes and misdemeanours" that normally may give rise to the impeachment of federal officers. In other words, the Good Behaviour Clause indicates that judges are not appointed to their seats for set terms and cannot be removed at will; removing a federal judge requires impeachment and conviction for a high crime or misdemeanour.

However, others have rejected this notion, claiming that the terms were interchangeable for the Framers. They interpret the "good behaviour" phrase simply to make clear that federal judges retain their office for life unless they are removed via a proper constitutional mechanism. The modern view of Congress appears to be that "good behaviour" does not establish an independent standard for impeachable conduct. Nevertheless, the history of impeachments in the United States might indicate that the range of conduct meriting removal differs between judges and executive branch officials due to the distinct nature of each office.

Additionally, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behaviour Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions. It also serves the essential purpose of protecting the independence of the judiciary and protecting litigants' rights to have claims adjudicated by an impartial judge free from the influence of another branch of government.

While there is no clear consensus on the precise meaning of "good behaviour," the debate revolves around the interpretation of the Good Behaviour Clause in the Constitution and its implications for the removal of federal judges.

The Clause also protects the independence of the judiciary and litigants' rights

The Good Behavior Clause in the US Constitution has been the subject of longstanding debate. Article III, Section 1 provides that federal judges hold their offices "during good behaviour". The meaning of "good behaviour" is not clear, and Congress does not have the authority to clarify it. However, it is widely understood that the clause protects federal judges from removal for reasons other than "high crimes and misdemeanors".

The Good Behavior Clause also serves to protect the independence of the judiciary and litigants' rights. It ensures that federal judges cannot be removed at will, and only through a proper constitutional mechanism, such as impeachment and conviction for a high crime or misdemeanor. This protects judges from removal due to congressional disagreement with their legal or political opinions, or for reasons that do not constitute impeachable conduct.

The Clause also prevents the elimination of the role of constitutional courts by transferring jurisdiction to non-Article III courts. This guards against the aggrandizement of power by one branch of government over another.

In addition, the Good Behavior Clause indicates that judges are to be compensated for their services at stated times, and that this compensation cannot be diminished during their continuance in office.

While the exact meaning of "good behaviour" remains ambiguous, the Clause plays an important role in upholding the independence of the judiciary and protecting the rights of litigants to have their claims adjudicated by an impartial judge, free from undue influence.

Frequently asked questions