What is the historical record of expulsion proceedings in the House and the Senate and key precedents?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Expulsion is the rarest and most severe form of congressional discipline, requiring a two‑thirds vote under Article I, Section 5; across U.S. history 21 members have been expelled — 15 Senators and 6 Representatives — most Senate expulsions [1] occurred during the Civil War for support of the Confederacy [2] [3]. Legal and historical guidance treats expulsion as distinct from exclusion and other discipline, and courts have largely avoided directly reviewing expulsion decisions [4] [5].
1. How the Constitution frames expulsion — a blunt institutional tool
Article I, Section 5 gives each chamber the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member,” making expulsion an internal, supermajority remedy for conduct the chamber views as incompatible with membership [6] [7]. Congress’s ethics committees typically investigate and report before a full‑chamber vote, but the Constitution itself only prescribes the two‑thirds threshold, not procedures [6].
2. The historical tally and the Civil War precedent
The historical record shows extreme rarity: 21 expulsions in total, with the Senate expelling 15 members and the House 6. The Senate’s largest set of expulsions — 14 Senators — took place during the Civil War era, tied to support for the Confederacy; that episode remains the dominant historical precedent for using expulsion on grounds of disloyalty [2] [3].
3. House expulsions: political, criminal, and resignation dynamics
Only six House members have been expelled in U.S. history, and several cases resolved without a formal expulsion vote because members resigned when faced with investigations or indictment — a recurring pattern that reduces the number of formal expulsions [8] [9]. Recent examples and reporting show the House may file an expulsion resolution after criminal indictments or serious ethics findings, but political arithmetic (two‑thirds required) and partisan majorities shape outcomes [10] [11].
4. Legal limits and the distinction from exclusion
Judicial doctrine draws a firm line between exclusion (preventing an elected person from taking a seat under the Qualifications Clauses) and expulsion (removing a seated member under Article I, §5). The Supreme Court in Powell‑related rulings held Congress cannot substitute exclusion for expulsion; exclusion is limited to constitutional qualifications while expulsion is a separate discretionary disciplinary power [4] [7]. Courts have not squarely decided a case directly on expulsion itself and generally treat it as a political question, declining to intrude on each chamber’s self‑discipline [5].
5. How proceedings usually proceed in practice
Expulsion proceedings commonly begin with an ethics committee investigation and possible recommendation to the full chamber; the committee’s role and internal rules shape the formality of the process, but the final act remains a floor vote requiring two‑thirds concurrence [6] [4]. In many instances the threat of expulsion, and the publicity around investigations, prompts resignations that avert the formal two‑thirds vote [9].
6. Judicial review and separation‑of‑powers limits
Lower courts have repeatedly declined to entertain direct judicial challenges to expulsions, citing separation of powers and the political‑question doctrine; the Supreme Court has not rendered a decision directly upholding or striking down an expulsion determination, leaving significant deference to Congress [5] [4]. Available sources note that expelled members historically have not prevailed in attempts to have expulsions reviewed [5].
7. Competing perspectives and institutional incentives
Supporters of vigorous use of expulsion argue it protects institutional integrity — particularly in cases of criminality or treasonable conduct — while critics warn it can be politicized, used to punish political opponents, or to pre‑empt voters’ choices; the historical preference for resignation over expulsion suggests members and parties often weigh reputational and electoral calculations as much as legal prudence [9] [11]. Different scholars and congressional offices emphasize either deference to chamber judgment or caution about overreach; those disagreements are reflected in statutory history and practice [4] [6].
8. Key precedents to watch and limitations of the record
The dominant precedents are the Civil War expulsions for disloyalty and the Powell line distinguishing exclusion from expulsion; beyond that, the sparse number of expulsions and courts’ avoidance of the issue mean there is limited judicial guidance on when exactly misconduct rises to the level warranting expulsion [3] [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive judicial standard for expulsion beyond deference to the chambers [5].
9. Bottom line for contemporary debates
Expulsion remains constitutionally available and historically rare; it is shaped by two‑thirds votes, ethics committee practices, political calculations, and a body of law that treats expulsion as a principally legislative, not judicial, question [6] [4] [5]. When considering calls for expulsion today, the most relevant historical touchstones are the Civil War expulsions (Senate), the handful of House expulsions, and the Powell exclusion/expulsion jurisprudence that limits substitution of powers [3] [8] [4].