It makes sense for articles of impeachment to be served by the House of Representatives, but the actual determination of illegality/legality of actions should be determined by legal experts i.e. judges and not senators who may have conflicting interests.

The second acquittal of former President Donald Trump represents a disturbing moment for U.S. politics. Despite significant evidence, 43 GOP senators shielded the former President from conviction. However, the judicial system does not constitute a viable alternative for the impeachment process. Involving the court system would have significant ramifications for the separation of powers. A sitting President enjoys extensive immunity from civil suits. In *Nixon v. Fitzgerald*, the Supreme Court entitles the President with “absolute immunity… functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history." [1]. In two memos, the U.S. Justice Department reached the same conclusion. The Justice Department believed that civil indictments could interfere with the President’s ability to perform his duty as the executive officer of the United States. This interference would constitute a violation of the separation of powers. [2] A court-oriented impeachment process can damage that immunity. The judicial system does not have the practical tool for presidential impeachment. While the process adopts legal vocabularies, impeachment differs significantly from the typical court cases. It does not have to follow established procedures. Its standard for conviction differs from that adopted by the court. It asks a fundamentally political question: should the President be removed from office? The judicial system must then follow the political question doctrine asserted in *Baker v. Carr*. The doctrine bars the judiciary from engaging in issues which it lacks the “discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” and which is assigned to “a coordinate political department”. Regrettably, the doctrine leaves the job only to the Senate. [3] Furthermore, a court-mandated impeachment can be undemocratic. The presidency represents the most important and only national election in the U.S, with no alternatives. A grand jury impeachment allows a small, non-elected group to cancel the votes of millions. “Voters, not lawyers, choose the President.” wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas. [4] The phrase rejects one of Trump’s legal attempts to undo the 2020 election in Pennsylvania. It should also suffice to reject the notion of a court-oriented impeachment. These doctrines and procedures may seem trivial compared to the injustice of the second Trump acquittal. They are not. The United States judicial system functions on precedents. Having a court decides impeachment might open the door to further erosion of important principles, chief among them the separation of powers. If allowed to cumulate, the erosion can cause significant chaos for U.S. politics with far reaching consequences beyond the Trump era. [1]. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) [2]. Moss, Randolph. 2000. "A Sitting President's Amenability To Indictment And Presidential Prosecution". U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/file/19351/download. [3]. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) [4]. Donald Trump For President, Inc et al v. Secretary Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2020 3d Cir.