Can a congressman be removed from office while awaiting trial?
Executive summary
A Member of Congress can be removed from office before a criminal conviction, but the constitutional route is not criminal trial or automatic disqualification — it is a political process inside the chamber that elected the member: expulsion by a two‑thirds vote of the House or Senate to which the member belongs [1] [2]. Impeachment and Senate conviction are the constitutionally prescribed remedies for “civil officers,” not ordinary Members of Congress, and historically legislatures have preferred the simpler expulsion route when acting against their own members [3] [4].
1. The constitutional tool most likely to end a member’s term is expulsion, not criminal conviction
Article I gives each chamber the power to set its own rules and to punish or expel members, and the expulsion threshold is two‑thirds of those present and voting — a standard the House and Senate have applied sporadically across U.S. history [2] [1]. Congressional practice and legal commentary make clear that expulsion is the normal mechanism for removing a Representative or Senator while in office, and it can be used before, during, or after external criminal proceedings because it is an internal, political judgment rather than a judicial one [1] [2].
2. Impeachment is generally not the path for removing rank‑and‑file members of Congress
Impeachment is written in the Constitution as a remedy for the President, Vice‑President and “civil Officers of the United States,” and its machinery — House impeachment followed by Senate trial and two‑thirds conviction — is normally aimed at executive and judicial officials [3] [5]. Scholarly and institutional sources note that while the impeachment clause technically could be invoked against legislators in rare historical circumstances, precedent and practice have left expulsion as the practical and procedural tool for members of Congress [6] [4].
3. Awaiting trial does not immunize a member from congressional discipline, and expulsion has been used even when voters had recently reelected a member
Congress has acted to expel or to pursue disciplinary measures against members whose alleged misconduct was the subject of indictments or investigations; the Congressional Research Service records show instances where expulsion was recommended or pursued even if the alleged misconduct occurred before re‑election, indicating the chamber’s broad latitude to decide membership regardless of judicial timing [1]. Expulsion is rare, but the House or Senate can move more quickly and with different standards than a court — it is a political judgment about fitness to serve that can be taken while criminal cases are pending [1] [2].
4. Lesser parliamentary penalties and practical constraints shape outcomes
Congress can impose penalties short of expulsion — from censure to committee removals to other punishments governed by each chamber’s rules — and political calculus often drives whether leaders pursue expulsion while a criminal process unfolds [7] [1]. The rarity of expulsions (few in Senate history and similarly infrequent in the House) reflects both the high two‑thirds threshold and the political risks and considerations that accompany taking a seat away from a member of one’s own chamber [2] [1].
5. What the record does and does not answer about “awaiting trial” scenarios
Available sources establish that Members of Congress are removable by expulsion while criminal proceedings are pending and that impeachment is not the typical vehicle for removing them, but they do not provide a formulaic rule about timing, standards of proof, or how often chambers will act mid‑trial; those decisions remain political and fact‑specific to each case [1] [3]. Historical examples and CRS analysis illustrate the legal authority and precedent for action but also show that expulsions are exceptional and shaped by political context rather than by automatic legal consequence [2] [1].