HRES-1166-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
Sponsored by Anna Luna (R-FL)
What it does
This resolution would expel Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) from the United States House of Representatives. Under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, expulsion requires a two-thirds vote of the House. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Ethics and has not yet received a floor vote.
Who benefits
Members of Congress who support the expulsion and their constituents who favor the action. The resolution's sponsors and their political allies. Candidates or future officeholders who might seek to fill the seat if expulsion succeeded and a vacancy were created. Constituents of the sponsor who view the action as accountability.
Who is hurt
Representative Swalwell directly, as he would lose his seat and the ability to represent his constituents. The roughly 800,000 residents of California's 14th Congressional District would lose their elected representative until a special election could be held. Swalwell's staff would face job loss. Precedent concerns: members of either party who fear future expulsion resolutions used as political tools.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the House has both the constitutional authority and institutional responsibility to police its own membership under Article I, Section 5, which explicitly grants each chamber the power to expel members. They contend that expulsion resolutions serve as a legitimate accountability mechanism when a member's conduct is deemed incompatible with continued service, and that the Ethics Committee referral ensures the matter receives proper procedural review before any floor action.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expulsion is an extraordinary remedy historically reserved for the most severe misconduct — such as treason or corruption — and that using it for political purposes undermines democratic norms by effectively overriding the will of voters who elected Swalwell. They contend that the bill's text provides no specific factual basis or charges, raising due process concerns and suggesting the resolution is punitive rather than grounded in documented misconduct subject to Ethics Committee findings.