Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Faces Expulsion Over Pocketing Overpayment

News

​U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, sitting behind a desk, appearing for a hearing.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FLA) appears for a hearing of the House Ethics Committee on Capitol Hill on March 26, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL20) has been charged by the federal government with “stealing federal disaster funds, laundering the proceeds, and using the money to support her 2021 congressional campaign.” The House Ethics Committee additionally is investigating her for incorrectly filing financial disclosures, accepting voluntary services for work that should have been paid, and of using her position to direct community project funding requests.

It all started with two extra zeros. Cherfilus-McCormick’s family business Trinity Health Care billed the state of Florida for $50,578.50 but mistakenly received $5,057,850.00. Rather than return the overpayment, she and other family members seem to have used most of that overpayment to fund her election campaign. She is also accused of setting up straw donor systems and filing false 2021 tax returns.


The House Committee on Ethics’s Statement of Alleged Violations runs 59 pages long, but is summarized in this Ethics Committee slide (apologies that the text is not very legible here):

Investigations Timeline

2023: The Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC), a separate group from the House Committee on Ethics, forwarded to the Ethics Committee in September 2023 a report in which the OCC had concluded there was substantial reason to investigate Cherfilus-McCormick for accepting voluntary work that should have been paid and routing funds to a state political action committee, both violations of House rules. In November and December 2023, Ethics announced the existence of an investigation and the creation of an Investigatory Subcommittee.

2024: The Ethics Committee expanded its investigation to include new allegations in a 2024 OCC report. This report alleged that Cherfilus-McCormick may have accepted campaign contributions in exchange for community project funding (aka earmarks), may have misreported campaign contributions and may have tried to direct earmarks to for-profit companies. All are violations of House rules and probably also criminal violations.

2025: The Ethics Committee continued its investigation. In November, the Department of Justice indicted Cherfilus-McCormick for having kept, and used in campaigns, the $5 million dollar overpayment to her family company as well as for setting up straw donors and filing false tax returns.

2026: The Ethics Committee announced the creation of an Adjudicatory Committee to assess the Investigative Subcommittee’s formal Statement of Alleged Violations and in March held an Adjudicatory Hearing (part 1 and part 2). The Adjudicatory Committee voted to sustain all but one of the statements of alleged violations.

On Tuesday, April 21, the Ethics Committee is expected to decide on what kind of discipline Cherfilus-McCormick should face. She might only be censured, but there’s a good chance that the Ethics Committee will recommend expulsion. (Some legislators are also seeking the expulsion of three other legislators. More on that below.)

What Were the Issues Argued at the Hearing?

Cherfilus-McCormick’s attorney, William Barzee, argued that having this hearing at all, but especially in public, would harm Cherfilus-McCormick’s constitutional right to a fair trial (coming up probably this summer) by prejudicing potential jurors and harming her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Were the committee to find that Cherfilus-McCormick had committed the violations described above, the use of “guilty” to describe the outcome would be especially problematic in advance of the trial, he argued.

Committee staff argued that because a) only the House can enforce its own rules and b) they have different standards of proof, c) the sanctions, at most, will mean expulsion from Congress and no loss of personal freedom via incarceration and d) they’ve been investigating since 2023, they will not harm her rights with respect to the criminal case.

While many elements do overlap, just because Chefilus-McCormick is found to have violated House rules on campaign contributions, say, by using that $5 million dollar overpayment, that doesn’t mean a jury would agree given standards of evidence in criminal cases. Further, for allegations that don’t overlap, such as failure to properly disclose finances and a lack of candor, there is no other venue to sanction her.

Barzee also argued that Cherfilus-McCormick, by virtue of how Trinity Health Care was structured, was entitled to whatever profits the company made, even if the profit was a mistake. We found this argument bizarre.

What Happens Next?

Since Friday April 10, things have gotten a bit more complicated. There have been ongoing complaints among House members about the lack of action in Ethics Committee investigations of Rep. Gonzales (R-TX23) and Rep. Mills (R-FL7), both accused of sexual harassment as well as other House rules violations. Then on Friday, several women went public with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Rep. Swalwell (D-CA14).

On Monday April 13, both Reps. Swalwell and Gonzales announced they would be leaving Congress, although neither indicated when and as of this writing, no official resignations have been submitted. Because Swalwell is a Democrat and Gonzales a Republican, their resignations, if simultaneous, will have no effect on the margins needed for Republicans to pass legislation. In the meanwhile, all four are facing potential expulsion.


Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick Faces Expulsion Over Pocketing Overpayment was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less