What historical examples show the Senate trying resigned cabinet officials and how were jurisdiction issues resolved?
Executive summary
Two distinct threads in American history answer whether the Senate can try cabinet officials who have already left office: the 1876 impeachment and trial of Secretary of War William Belknap, where the Senate asserted jurisdiction and held a full trial despite Belknap’s resignation, and a line of 20th–21st century practices and votes — culminating in debates over trying former officials including President Trump — in which the Senate has repeatedly resolved jurisdiction disputes by majority votes to proceed (Belknap: [2]; Senate summary: [1]; Constitution Annotated: p1_s4).
1. The Belknap test: a resigned cabinet secretary tried and the Senate asserts jurisdiction
William W. Belknap resigned as Secretary of War in 1876 after allegations he accepted large sums in exchange for lucrative post contracts; the House nevertheless impeached him and managers presented five articles to the Senate, which convened a trial, heard more than 40 witnesses and reviewed extensive documents, and ultimately fell short of the two‑thirds vote needed to convict and disqualify him despite proceeding after his resignation (Time reporting on Belknap: [2]; official Senate account: p1_s2).
2. An early lesson: Blount and the limits of “civil officer” jurisdiction
The Republic’s first impeachment episode — Senator William Blount in 1797 — helped define who counts as a “civil officer” subject to impeachment: the Senate dismissed a related impeachment-style proceeding for lack of jurisdiction with respect to a sitting senator, establishing an early boundary between expulsion by a chamber and impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate (History summary of Blount: [4]; House institutional history: p1_s8).
3. From precedent to practice: how modern institutions treat former officials
Congressional and scholarly summaries show that the Senate’s willingness to try former officeholders did not end with Belknap; the Constitution Annotated traces decisions from that 1876 trial through the second impeachment trial of President Trump in 2020–21 to show that the Senate has, by majority votes, claimed authority to proceed against former officials in order to carry out impeachment’s collateral penalty of disqualification from future office (Constitution Annotated: p1_s4). The House’s institutional list likewise notes that only two cabinet secretaries have been impeached (Belknap and, more recently, Alejandro Mayorkas) while underscoring that Senate prosecution and penalties remain the constitutional mechanism (House history: p1_s8).
4. How jurisdiction disputes were resolved in practice — politics, votes, and evidentiary trials
When jurisdiction has been contested, the Senate has resolved it politically by majority votes to assert jurisdiction and then conducted trials: in Belknap the Senate voted to proceed, took testimony from dozens of witnesses and reviewed bank records [1] [2]; in modern disputes the Constitution Annotated and Senate documents describe majority votes and procedural rulings that allowed trials of former officials to go forward because barring them, the analyses argue, would mean resignation could nullify the disqualification penalty that impeachment allows (Constitution Annotated: p1_s4). The practical upshot is that jurisdictional questions have been settled not by a single constitutional text litigated to final judicial resolution but by the Senate’s institutional choice to exercise its Article I trial power [3].
5. What this history means for claims about “resignation immunity”
The documentary record shows there is no simple rule that resignation ends accountability through impeachment: Belknap’s trial demonstrates the Senate will, and has, try a former cabinet official [1] [2], and modern institutional commentary treats Belknap as a durable precedent that the Senate can apply to later former‑officer cases (Constitution Annotated: p1_s4). At the same time, early episodes like Blount’s clarify limits — not every political actor is a “civil officer” for impeachment purposes, and constitutional categories matter to jurisdictional outcomes [4] [5].
Conclusion
Historical practice is clear and contested at once: the Senate has tried at least one resigned cabinet secretary (Belknap) and has, in recent practice and interpretive commentary, reaffirmed that it can try former officials in order to impose disqualification from future office; jurisdictional disputes have been resolved largely within the Senate by majority rulings and full evidentiary trials rather than by an unambiguous judicial pronouncement (Belknap record: [2]; Senate history: [1]; Constitution Annotated and House institutional history: [3]; p1_s8).