Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

House Speaker’s Refusal To Seat Arizona Representative Is Supported by History and Law

Opinion

The U.S. Capitol is seen on Nov, 5, 2025.

The U.S. Capitol is seen on Nov, 5, 2025.

Getty Images, Tom Brenner

Adelita Grijalva won a special election in Arizona on Sept. 23, 2025, becoming the newest member of Congress and the state’s first Latina representative.

Yet, despite the Arizona secretary of state’s formal certification of Grijalva, a Democrat, as the winner of that election, Rep.-elect Grijalva has not been sworn into office.


Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, who by law is responsible for making that happen, claims the government shutdown means Grijalva must wait until the federal government resumes normal operations.

In response, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed a lawsuit on Oct. 21 alleging that Johnson has denied the state its representation in Congress.

No one disputes that Grijalva is the next member of the House of Representatives for the 7th District of Arizona. And the House hasn’t conducted business since Sept. 19, when Johnson gaveled it out of session.

So why does it matter whether Grijalva is sworn in now or later?

The lawsuit filed by Mayes claims Johnson is using his power to “strengthen his hand” in the ongoing budget battle that has shut down the federal government. Additionally, Grijalva has pledged to provide the last necessary signature to force a vote on a bipartisan measure demanding that the Trump administration release government files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But as a law scholar who analyzes government institutions, I recognize that the speaker historically has had power to determine when the oath is administered. And courts have been reluctant to weigh in the speaker’s use of that power.

The speaker’s historical power

The framers of the Constitution were divided on whether to require members of Congress to take an oath of office. Representing a political compromise on the issue, the Constitution requires all Senate and House members to take an oath to support the Constitution before assuming office. But the framers left the substance and administration of the oath up to Congress.

Congress put the speaker of the House in charge of administering the oath to incoming House members and first specified its text in 1789. The Oath Act required members of Congress to “solemnly swear or affirm” support of the Constitution.

Historically, the speaker administered the oath to new House members state by state. This meant that each state’s newly elected representatives stood alone in front of Congress. However, in 1929, House Speaker Nicolas Longworth changed tradition so that all new members were sworn in at the same time.

A woman speaks in front of a podium.Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., speaks at the Capitol in Washington on Oct. 15, 2025. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Longworth did so after Oscar DePriest – the first African American to serve in Congress in the 20th century – won an election in Illinois to replace Rep. Martin B. Madden, who had died of a heart attack. Longworth acted in response to speculation that Southern Democrats would attempt to prevent a Black lawmaker from joining the House. Rather than swearing in members state by state, Longworth swore in all members at once so DePriest was not stopped from taking the oath of office.

Since that time, the speaker has administered the oath of office to all newly elected members of the House as a collective unit.

How things work now

Under current law, the speaker must administer the oath of office to all House members prior to them taking their seats.

Here’s how this has worked over the past few decades:

After the House elects a speaker, the member with the longest continuous service in the House – called the dean of the House – administers the oath to the speaker. Then the speaker administers the oath to the rest of the members all together as a mark of a new Congress.

The idea is that despite partisan differences, every legislator commits in front of the others to uphold the Constitution.

But occasionally, either because of illness, a special election or other circumstances, a newly elected member of Congress can’t take the oath with everyone else. When that happens, that person is sworn in at a later date.

On Sept. 9, 2025, for example, Democrat James Walkinshaw won a special election to succeed the late Gerry Connolly, who died in office while representing Virginia’s 11th congressional district. Johnson swore Walkinshaw in the next day.

While the speaker has the responsibility for administering the oath, the House may adopt a resolution to designate a judge or House member selected by the speaker to do the job for him.

In 1999, for example, Speaker Dennis Hastert designated retired California Judge Ellen Sickles James to administer the oath to Rep.-elect George Miller.

Regardless of who swears into office a member of Congress who could not attend the collective ceremony, the administration of the oath has traditionally occurred on days in which the House is session. But it does not have to be that way.

The law is ambiguous on when the oath is administered.

And House speakers have not always acted swiftly. In spring 2021, for instance, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi waited 25 days before administering the oath to Republican Rep.-elect Julia Letlow. That’s because the House did not have a session scheduled immediately following Letlow’s election.

Johnson has referred to this particular delay as the “Pelosi precedent,” setting a standard practice of the speaker waiting to administer the oath until Congress is in session.

A woman hugs another woman in a room full of people.Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva greets supporters on Nov. 1, 2025, in Tucson, Ariz. Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

Why does it matter?

The delay in administering Grijalva the oath is the longest in modern history.

While Grijalva waits, she does not have access to the resources typically provided to members of the House to help them perform their jobs, including an operating budget for her offices or even the ability to log in to key databases.

This means Grijalva is limited in her ability to represent her over 800,000 constituents.

She describes her current situation as “having the title but none of the job.”

Grijalva, Arizona Attorney General Mayes and congressional Democrats accuse the speaker of playing politics. But history and the law suggest that may be Johnson’s prerogative until the government reopens.


Jennifer L. Selin is an Associate Professor at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.

House Speaker’s Refusal To Seat Arizona Representative Is Supported by History and Law was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.


Read More

Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage

An immigrant woman detained by ICE since February says that she has received limited medical care despite repeatedly voicing concerns that she may have had a miscarriage while at the detention center.

National Immigrant Justice Center

Lawmakers Push for Immigrant Woman’s Release and Medical Records After Suspected Miscarriage

Lawmakers are seeking the release of an immigrant woman who says that — despite pleading for help after experiencing bleeding and severe pain, indications of a possible miscarriage — she has received limited medical care in detention.

“This is URGENT, please. I am pregnant and have been bleeding since yesterday, Saturday the 21st. It is vaginal bleeding. I am pregnant, and I am scared for the baby; I am also experiencing pain in my lower back, hips and abdomen. I am under a great deal of stress. Thank you. Please help me,” she wrote in Spanish in an emergency medicine request in late March that was shared with The 19th.

Keep ReadingShow less
Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy

Three law books beside opened notebook

Answering the Call, Lawyers Must Lead the Defense of Democracy

This year marks the 250th anniversary of our founders’ Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. But the constitutional democracy it enabled - designed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - is now threatened, not by a foreign adversary, but from within.

Persistent constitutional and statutory transgressions, coupled with the continued erosion of democratic norms that once safeguarded our institutions, have undermined the foundations of our democratic order. They have also shaken Americans’ confidence in its durability.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection. Back lit

From FIFA to federal agencies, politics is reshaping institutions once guided by expertise. How Trump v. Slaughter could redefine presidential power.

Aitor Diago/Getty Images

The Politicization of Everything

A red card is supposed to be one of the few things in public life a president cannot fix.

Not anymore, apparently. During the World Cup, U.S. striker Folarin Balogun received a red card and an automatic one-game suspension. President Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who lifted the suspension. Whether the decision was right or wrong is beside the point. Another line separating politics from ordinary life had been crossed.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lawyers Must Defend the Rule of Law, as the Founders Intended
We the People billboard
Photo by Larry Alger on Unsplash

Lawyers Must Defend the Rule of Law, as the Founders Intended

The Declaration of Independence is an explanation for why the colonists wanted their own country, but it's mostly an indictment: a 27-count charging document against King George III for running a lawless government. “He has obstructed the Administration of Justice.” “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone.” “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people.”

It shouldn't be a surprise that so many of the 56 signers of the Declaration were lawyers. Lawyers swear an oath to the truth, to good faith, and to ethical conduct. In this year of the Declaration's 250th anniversary, it's important to remind lawyers of their oaths and their duty to defend against lawless, unethical behavior. At a time when it seems that more lawyers than ever are breaking faith with their oaths, the Declaration provides a model for how lawyers should respond.

Keep ReadingShow less