Are there any examples of congressmen being removed from office after an arrest in the last 10 years?

1. Expulsion is an extraordinary remedy, not an automatic consequence of arrest

The Constitution gives each chamber the authority to expel a member by a two‑thirds vote, and historical practice treats expulsion as the most severe and exceptional form of discipline, used sparingly across centuries ^{[3] [4]}; official House historical records underline that expulsion is rare and reserved for the gravest misconduct ^[5]. The Congressional Research Service explains there is no statutory or House rule that automatically strips a Member of office upon indictment or arrest, meaning removal requires affirmative chamber action or voluntary resignation ^[2].

2. Arrests, indictments and convictions appear in separate tracks from chamber discipline

Databases and compiled lists differentiate arrests/indictments/convictions from disciplinary outcomes like expulsion, censure or reprimand: compilations of federal politicians convicted of crimes treat conviction as a distinct category and expressly exclude mere arrests or unprosecuted scandals from their lists ^[6]. GovTrack’s misconduct database catalogs allegations and various disciplinary responses but does not indicate a routine pathway from arrest to automatic removal ^[7]. That institutional separation matters: an arrest can prompt ethics probes, criminal proceedings, public pressure and sometimes resignation, but the House or Senate must still choose to punish through their own disciplinary mechanisms ^{[5] [2]}.

3. Recent removals are rare — and the sources name expulsions but not an arrest‑to‑expulsion pattern in the last decade

Contemporary reporting and historical lists show very few expulsions overall and note modern expulsions as exceptional; for example, one accessible list notes that before a recent high‑profile case only five House members had been expelled historically, and a later news item documents a sixth expulsion (George Santos) without linking that expulsion in the source set to a simple arrest precipitating the vote ^{[8] [1]}. The materials supplied do not document a clear case in the past ten years where a Member was arrested and then expelled by a chamber vote as a direct, singular consequence of that arrest ^{[1] [8] [5]}.

4. More common outcomes after criminal allegations are resignations, retirements or no removal

Where criminal allegations arise, the pattern in modern practice — as described in the CRS and House history materials — is for Members to face parallel processes: criminal justice procedures, House ethics investigations, media scrutiny and potential political pressure to resign, rather than an automatic removal by the chamber ^{[2] [5]}. Databases and news trackers show Members under criminal investigation or indictment sometimes step down or do not seek re‑election, but those are political outcomes rather than formal expulsions driven solely by an arrest in the record excerpts provided ^{[7] [9]}.

5. Constitutional privilege and the narrow set of arrestable offenses while in session complicate the picture

Article I includes a privilege from arrest for Members in limited circumstances, and scholarly annotations note this was intended to shield legislative business from petty process; only treason, felony, or a breach of the peace are commonly described as permitting arrest while attending congressional sessions, which underscores the legal and procedural nuances that separate an arrest from immediate removal ^{[10] [11]}. That constitutional backdrop helps explain why chamber discipline remains a distinct, politically mediated mechanism.

6. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

Based on the supplied sources, expulsions remain rare and there is no documented instance in this set of materials from the past ten years showing a Member of Congress being expelled solely because of an arrest; the sources instead show that arrests and indictments typically trigger legal processes, ethics reviews, public pressure and sometimes resignation — not an automatic expulsion — and they make clear the House and Senate retain discretion to act ^{[1] [2] [5]}. If a narrower search of contemporary news archives or chamber roll‑call records were added, it could identify specific modern resignations after arrest or indictment (which the provided sources do not catalogue in detail), but that is beyond the limits of the materials supplied here.