Constitutional legal scholars asserted Republicans were using impeachment to address immigration policy disputes rather than for
high crimes and misdemeanors, of which there was no evidence.
Doris Meissner, who was the Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service during the
Clinton Administration, the predecessor to the Department of Homeland Security, argued: "This really is about policy differences and politics. These arguments that he’s violated the law and violated court orders are a
smokescreen." Legal scholar and law professor
Jonathan Turley commented that the impeachment lacked a "cognizable basis" and that the inquiry had failed to show "conduct by the secretary that could be viewed as criminal or impeachable". Frank Bowman of the University of Missouri School of Law, said: "Put simply, on one hand, even if successfully impeaching and removing a Cabinet officer could change the policy of a presidential administration, using impeachment for that purpose would be contrary to America’s constitutional design." Former DHS secretary
Michael Chertoff, a Republican, wrote an opinion piece in
The Wall Street Journal that "Republicans in the House should drop this impeachment charade and work with Mr. Mayorkas to deliver for the American people." The conservative
Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote an editorial opposing the impeachment, arguing "impeaching Mr. Mayorkas won't change enforcement policy and is a bad precedent that will open the gates to more cabinet impeachments by both parties", adding "a policy dispute doesn't qualify as a high crime and misdemeanor."
The New York Times,
The Washington Post, and
CNN variously characterized the first failed vote as a "stunning rebuke", a "calamitous miscalculation", and a "story of a House in utter disarray". ==See also==