Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the historical record of expulsion proceedings in the House and the Senate and key precedents?
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].