* We talked about this a bit last night as related to a different reporter, but the goofy topic keeps coming back. There is just so much wrong with today’s Politico story, but let’s look at this part…
About reentering politics: Blagojevich also declined to comment on whether he might run for office again. Illinois law forbids him to run for state or local office — but that was before the pardon wiped away his criminal record. Elections officials are studying the law. There’s nothing stopping Blagojevich from running for federal office, however.
Nobody has to study the law. I’d really like to know who claimed that was being done - if anyone.
The law is super clear. The pardon changes nothing. Presidential pardons do not extend to state law, and states can remove a constitutional officer and ban that person from running again. To suggest otherwise ignores, well, pretty much all of American history.
* As I reminded y’all last night, we just had a ruling last year on this very matter. From United States District Judge Steven C. Seeger’s 2024 ruling…
The simple reality is that federal courts have no role to play when it comes to a state impeachment. The state legislature decided to remove Blagojevich from public life, and it is not the place of a federal court to bring him back.
Exactly right.
From the Illinois Constitution…
The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, or affirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.
* Back to the judge’s ruling…
For starters, Blagojevich cannot sue the State of Illinois under section 1983. That statute authorizes a claim against a “person” for violating federal rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But a state is not a “person,” as the Supreme Court explained decades ago. … The same conclusion applies to the Illinois General Assembly. The legislature isn’t a “person,” either. An “arm or instrumentality of the State” cannot be sued under section 1983. […]
Even if Blagojevich could get his foot in the door, he wouldn’t get very far before hitting his head on the constitutional architecture. The structure of the Constitution stands in his way, horizontally and vertically.
From a horizontal perspective, the separation of powers prevents a court from interfering with the business of the legislative branch when it comes to impeachments. From a vertical perspective, federalism prevents a federal court from interfering with the internal affairs of the state legislature.
* We could easily stop there, but let’s keep going anyway…
The Constitution vests the “Power” over impeachment in the legislative branch. It does not take much interpretative detective work to figure out that the judiciary has no seat at the table. Congress has the “Power,” and the judiciary has none. […]
Some states do allow some degree of judicial review of state impeachment proceedings, creating a limited window of opportunity as opposed to the closed door in the federal system. … Blagojevich has given this Court no reason to think that Illinois would be one of the states to allow judicial review. There isn’t a lot of case law in Illinois. In fact, there isn’t any case law. And for good reason. In its 205-year history, the Illinois General Assembly has impeached, convicted, and removed one public official: Blagojevich. […]
Blagojevich isn’t asking this Court to second-guess a federal impeachment. Blagojevich is inviting this Court to get involved in a state impeachment. If intervention by a federal court in a federal impeachment is bad, then intervention by a federal court in a state impeachment is worse. […]
Another jurisdictional issue lurks in the background. In essence, Blagojevich is asking this Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a state proceeding. By analogy, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “state-court losers” cannot run to federal court to undo what happened in state court. […]
Standing issues loom large, too. Blagojevich seeks to protect the right of voters to cast ballots for him. But a plaintiff generally lacks standing to assert the rights of others. […]
The case might not be ripe, either. Blagojevich didn’t exactly file his complaint at the federal courthouse in the dead of night. He took the unusual step of calling a press conference to let the world know that he was filing a complaint. […]
An impeachment proceeding is not a criminal prosecution. After all, Blagojevich didn’t go to federal prison because of what happened in the Illinois legislature. Blagojevich went to federal prison because of what happened in the federal courthouse. Impeachment didn’t lead to prison time. The Illinois General Assembly took away his job, not his liberty. […]
The complaint also invokes the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. But scholars have questioned whether there is a right to due process at all in an impeachment proceeding, let alone a judicially enforceable right to due process. … Again, the legislature has the power to create its own rules and afford as many procedural protections as it sees fit.
Blagojevich refused to testify in his own defense, instead making a lame speech at the end of his Senate trial.
Also, he was removed and barred from office long before he was convicted of anything. The federal conviction had no bearing on the impeachment.
…Adding… Good point from Hannah…
- George Ryan Reynolds - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:11 pm:
(Extreme Blago voice)
Heyyy Rich. How are ya? Today was basically an up!
- Drifter182 - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:13 pm:
Politico’s Illinois coverage leaves a lot to be desired. It was a valuable state politics briefing when under Natasha Korecki’s purview. Nowadays it’s more about which lobbyists appeared at which parties over the weekend and baseless conjecture like this.
- Squib Kick - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:19 pm:
But, but, but … I had an idea for content.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:21 pm:
- There’s nothing stopping Blagojevich from running for federal office, however. -
I’m sure his 7% approval rating when he left office has people shaking in their boots over this prospect.
- Retired SURS Employee - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:24 pm:
Rich, Thank You! I’m an attorney, albeit retired, and when I read that Politico article last night I couldn’t stop laughing!
- The Opinions Bureau - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:24 pm:
These are people of the land…
- NIU Grad - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:26 pm:
Dumb question, but is local office considered a “public office of this State”?
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:27 pm:
=To suggest otherwise ignores, well, pretty much all of American history.=
That doesn’t seem to matter to the gop these days.
=I’m sure his 7% approval rating when he left office has people shaking in their boots over this prospect.=
I assume he would run as a republican. The same party that helped elect a convicted felon to the presidency. Given blagos relationship with trump I can only assume he would have strong support in a gop primary. He kind of checks off all of their boxes.
- Anon324 - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:28 pm:
Hannah is incorrect that only expungement would wipe out the conviction. Ex parte Garland, decided by SCOTUS in 1866, was clear that a full pardon “releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence.”
The issue for Illinois is ultimately that he was impeached, removed, and banned. The federal conviction is void by virtue of the pardon. But as Rich has pointed out, th federal pardon does not have any effect on the impeachment and removal.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:31 pm:
To quote Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:32 pm:
===but is local office considered a “public office of this State”? ===
Yes
- Incandenza - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:33 pm:
=To suggest otherwise ignores, well, pretty much all of American history.=
Seems with a lot of recent news, journalists are falling back on entertaining everything as possible instead of doing even the minimum amount of research into constitutionality before publishing stories.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:34 pm:
- I assume he would run as a republican. -
Is he going to run for Congress in the 12th, 15th, or 16th? He sure isn’t going to win a general election close to home.
- Todd - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:40 pm:
Trump-’s pardon should have come with the condition he not die his hair
- So_Ill - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:41 pm:
Have any republicans condemned this yet? I wont hold my breath.
- Give Us Barabbas - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:46 pm:
Trump will appoint him ambassador to Serbia. Maybe he’ll stay there. All part of the newly formed federal department of get-backs and revenge.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:52 pm:
===Maybe he’ll stay there===
We can only hope.
- Squib Kick - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:52 pm:
–Have any republicans condemned this yet? I wont hold my breath.–
Rod just became the hot ticket for MAGA GOP fundraisers.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:54 pm:
===Hannah is incorrect ===
Department of Justice…
“Expungement is a judicial remedy that is rarely granted by the court and cannot be granted within the Department of Justice or by the President. Please also be aware that if you were to be granted a presidential pardon, the pardoned offense would not be removed from your criminal record. Instead, both the federal conviction as well as the pardon would both appear on your record. However, a pardon will facilitate removal of legal disabilities imposed because of the conviction, and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from the conviction. In addition, a pardon may be helpful in obtaining licenses, bonding, or employment. If you are seeking expungement of a federal offense, please contact the court of conviction. If you are seeking expungement of a state conviction, which the Office of the Pardon Attorney also does not have authority to handle, states have different procedures for “expunging” a conviction or “clearing” the record of a criminal conviction. To pursue relief of a state conviction, you should contact the Governor or state Attorney General in the state in which you were convicted for assistance.”
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Does%20a%20presidential%20pardon%20expunge,Justice%20or%20by%20the%20President
- Anon324 - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 12:54 pm:
I should add to my above as I realize it is not entirely clear, that there is competing case law on the issue of the effect of a pardon. Early cases, as indicated above, concluded that it effectively wiped the slate. More recent cases indicate a more limited, “punishment only” view, which is also reflected on the federal office of the pardon attorney FAQs.
I suspect there will be a decent number of cases coming out of 1/6 pardons from folks trying to argue for a clean slate that will be interesting to follow.
- low level - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:11 pm:
The only thing elections officials should be studying is how much Mr Blagojevich would lose by if he were somehow able to run again…
- Telly - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:19 pm:
@Homebody nails it with that Upton Sinclair quote.
Many in the media don’t want to understand the truth because that would get in the way of a good storyline. Very similar to the way they cover various proposals for Illinois counties secede from the state. Never gonna happen, but it makes for an easy, titillating story. So why make your job harder by letting the truth get in the way?
- JR - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:24 pm:
Why won’t he go away? I’m so tired of Blago ruining potentially good news reporting by his crapola filling up the media space instead. Shoo, fly. You’re bothering me.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:26 pm:
I fervently wish journalists and case law lawyers would stop giving Blago oxygen. He loves the attention and it just means we’ll see more of him, and stories about him, on cable news. Please stop.
- SAP - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:37 pm:
==Have any republicans condemned this yet? I wont hold my breath.==
One has, Rep LaHood:
While I respect President Trump’s authority under the United States Constitution to pardon who he sees fit, pardoning Governor Rod Blagojevich was a mistake. Former Governor Blagojevich has a clear and documented record of egregious corruption and has been criminally convicted by a jury. This decision harms the faith and trust citizens have in our justice system.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:37 pm:
While pardons don’t erase *records* of convictions (or arrests or other related criminal records), they do restore all related civil rights, including re: elected office. The case Hannah cites specifically says a pardon would allow the person to run for office.
But again and most importantly, none of this matters as the GA proceedings removed him from office and disqualified him from any state office
(he probably could run for US Rep though, ugh)
- flea - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:50 pm:
It’s pretty rich for Lahood to be opining about people being pardoned who committed crimes. J6 er’s must be on his side of the aisle.
- Levois - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:56 pm:
He can still shoot for an ambassadorship. Hopefully it won’t be “golden” for him!
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 1:58 pm:
I remember reading that Blago was not completely useless in negotiating the release of some POWs from Serbia in the late 1990s.
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 2:06 pm:
- I remember reading that Blago was not completely useless -
I suggest a re-read.
- Joe Bidenopolous - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 2:48 pm:
=Have any republicans condemned this yet?”
Curran
- JLW - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 2:52 pm:
Just like how Mitch McConnell could have spared us all of this regardless of what happened with the criminal cases….
- Garfield Ridge Guy - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 2:57 pm:
==It’s pretty rich for Lahood to be opining about people being pardoned who committed crimes.==
What do you want him to say? Isn’t it better to be wrong about one thing than two things?
- low level - Tuesday, Feb 11, 25 @ 3:05 pm:
==I remember reading that Blago was not completely useless in negotiating the release of some POWs from Serbia in the late 1990s.==
No, he was completely useless just like in everything else the man has ever done. Once he realized it wasn’t “golden”, he didnt care. We are fortunate the Serbs didnt get mad and decide to hold the POW’s even longer after Rod got involved.