After two impeachments and 34 criminal convictions did not stop Donald Trump from becoming president for the second time, a new legal strategy could be used to remove him from office, according to a civil trial lawyer who's successfully sued major corporations and the government.
Kevin K. Johnson, a civil and appellate trial lawyer in California, argues that contract and employment law could be used to remove Trump based on violations of his oath of office.
Johnson consulted with top legal scholars on the theory and discussed the strategy he presents in a book, “The American Oath Project: Protecting the Backbone of Democracy,” with the California Attorney General’s Office.
“As I understand the history of the creation of the Constitution, the founders intended the document to be a living, breathing document … so they didn't intend that the only remedy you would have if you had a lawless president would be to impeach and convict,” Johnson told Raw Story.
“They never intended that the document would be basically read as a suicide pact where you can't do anything under the circumstances that we're presented with today.”
Johnson argues that the Constitution is a “contract between the states and the federal government for the benefit of the public,” and Article II, which establishes the executive branch, serves as a contract for the president’s employment.
“[Trump is] an employee, and if employees are lying, cheating, stealing, doing things that are contrary to their obligations, then they're subject to discipline, including termination,” Johnson said.
Johnson said Trump has violated his oath of office “thousands of times” when considering lies told to the public and the billions in profits Trump gained using his office.
A Washington Post count found Trump lied more than 30,000 times in his first term alone, and he made more than $2 billion in 2025, according to his financial disclosure.
Other violations include denying due process rights to immigrants and infringing on free speech rights under the First Amendment in cases where Trump has sued or defamed citizens, journalists, political opponents and “anyone who comes to his attention as having spoken out against his policies,” Johnson said.
“The founders never intended that we would be helpless in this kind of a situation, and we need to look at the Constitution and the agreement of Trump to comply with the duties in Article II as contracts,” Johnson said.
“He breached them, and we need to go after him on the offense in terms of having him declared no longer president by the courts.”
Under employment and contract law, a lawyer could also bring a case against Trump as an employee of the United States, making him prove via independent examinations that he is physically and mentally healthy enough to serve in his job, Johnson said.
Trump, 80, has boasted about his cognitive test scores proving his “extreme intelligence,” even though medical experts say the test just screens for cognitive impairment.
“You can put up a really strong prima facie case in a civil filing on this in terms of all the reasons to believe that this guy is mentally degrading and is seriously degraded now,” said Johnson, referring to the legal term meaning a claim brought to court has merit on its face.
The California Attorney General’s Office did not respond to Raw Story’s request for comment.
Oliver Houck, emeritus chair in public interest law at Tulane Law School in New Orleans, endorsed the book and called the evidence that Trump violated his oath of office "overwhelming."
“That he's breached his oath is, I think, unarguable. Of course he has, and in very serious ways,” Houck told Raw Story.
While the breach of contract approach is theoretically correct, Houck said finding a lawyer to take on the case is a challenge, as doing so would expose them to “incredible personal liability, just out of revenge.”
“[Trump] can wear out anybody who sues him for money or sues him in any way,” Houck said.
Plus, it’s "inevitable" such a case would end up at the Supreme Court, which would most likely take the case on its emergency docket, which doesn’t require full briefings or public arguments, Houck said.
“The problem is the Supreme Court has virtually immunized [Trump] in recent decisions and has approved, or at least refused to review, some pretty patent violations of the Constitution,” said Houck, who authored a book, “The Most Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court's Dark Journey Through Environmental Law.”
“It's a very, very pro-Trump court and a very racist court, so I think the chances of getting it to penalize Trump with a lawsuit is beyond reach.”
Johnson argued that Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, might join with progressive justices in ruling on such a case, pointing to some of the recent decisions where the court has ruled against Trump, including on birthright citizenship and tariffs.
“There's no evidence that any of them have been closet monarchists or authoritarian enablers,” Johnson said. “None of them want to go down in history as justices that served up democracy to an authoritarian who seized control and never let it go.”
Rather than use contract or employment law, an alternative legal approach could be bringing a declaratory judgment, which is a binding court order that could declare the a government’s actions illegal but not necessarily order a remedy, Houck said
Landmark Supreme Court cases Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade are examples of declaratory judgments.
“This is a lawsuit waiting for a lawyer willing to put his livelihood on the line to bring it because it is going to be a countersuit that the Department of Justice will bring, and it'll be hellacious,” Houck said.
“I think a declaratory judgment is the way to do it. It's the softest way to approach it. Even a declaration … would be a tremendous symbolic blow to [Trump] and to his adherents.”
To bring a case against Trump, Johnson proposed a variety of potential plaintiffs, such as victims of Jeffrey Epstein, who “have constitutional rights to petition their government for redress of grievances, and the Trump administration has been one big conspiracy to stop them from getting documents that they need,” he said.
Other ideas for plaintiff include Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who were the subjects of an investigation by the Department of Justice over a video made with other Democratic lawmakers urging service members to reject unlawful military orders.
“This is in retaliation for them exercising their First Amendment rights, so they would be perfect plaintiffs in terms of bringing this lawsuit against Trump,” Johnson said.
States or a coalition of lawmakers could bring a lawsuit saying Trump failed to perform duties he agreed to under his oath of office, Houck said.
If “any color of Republican” joined such a suit, it would be a much stronger case, he said.
Republican lawmakers who have strained relations with Trump such as Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME) or Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) would be ideal candidates to be involved in bringing a lawsuit against Trump, Houck said.
While Trump faced four criminal indictments and his administration currently faces more than 300 lawsuits, Johnson said the issue is “everybody's being defensive.”
“It's not stopping Trump. He just keeps going forward,” Johnson said.
If legal action isn’t taken offensively, Johnson fears Trump will declare “a national emergency and just takes everything over,” especially with the midterm elections, which some experts argue he has already made moves to undermine, particularly in relation to mail-in ballots,
“He can't afford to lose power, nor can he afford to leave the presidency in light of all of his activities,” Johnson said.
“An authoritarian puts themselves in a position where, you know, they've been so corrupt, and they've been so brutal and all that, they can't step down from power. They can't let it go, otherwise they're at major risk, so it's naive to think that he's going to do anything other than do what he feels he needs to do to stay in power.”
Scholars have expressed concerns that this legal strategy could be used on a Democratic president in the future, but Johnson said it’s imperative to attempt to remove Trump from office immediately.
“There should never be a president again, if elected, that has a scope of lawlessness and cruelty that Trump has exhibited and continues to exhibit, and it's the cumulative impacts of everything that he's done that makes it essential that he be declared out of office," he said.
