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.
How does the House or Senate initiate and conduct expulsion proceedings against a member?
Executive summary
Congressional expulsions are an explicitly constitutional power: Article I, Section 5 gives each chamber authority to discipline and—with a two‑thirds vote—expel a member (two‑thirds requirement cited repeatedly in official histories) [1] [2]. In practice the House and Senate have handled potential expulsions through their ethics committees or ad hoc procedures, with expulsion rare historically (15 Senate expulsions, 6 House expulsions, most in 1861–62) [3] [4].
1. What the Constitution actually says — a simple, decisive rule
The Constitution grants each House broad disciplinary power and sets a single hard rule for expulsion: concurrence of two‑thirds of members present and voting (Article I, Section 5) [1] [2]. That language gives Congress wide latitude to define the grounds and procedures for punishment, but the two‑thirds vote is the only explicit constitutional limitation [2].
2. How expulsions typically begin — committee work, resolutions, or referrals
Available sources describe two common starting points: a member complaint or referral that triggers an ethics committee investigation, or a floor resolution introduced by colleagues that directly calls for discipline or an inquiry. In the House, matters normally move through the Committee on Ethics; in the Senate through the Select Committee on Ethics, which investigate allegations, hold hearings, and may recommend disciplinary steps including expulsion to the full chamber [4] [5].
3. Investigations and deliberations — investigatory subcommittees to full committee reports
Ethics committees generally use an investigatory subcommittee to gather evidence, interview witnesses, and conduct adjudicatory hearings; that subcommittee then votes on findings and recommendations. If expulsion is recommended, the committee’s report is referred to the full House or Senate where members may accept, reject, or modify its recommendation and ultimately vote on any resolution to expel [4].
4. The floor vote — the decisive legal and political moment
Expulsion itself is accomplished by a formal resolution agreed to by two‑thirds of the members present and voting in the chamber—no separate criminal conviction or impeachment from another chamber is required. Congressional practice treats expulsion as a self‑disciplining legislative act distinct from impeachment or criminal proceedings [6] [7].
5. How courts view expulsion — wide deference to Congress
Judicial authorities have largely declined to substitute judicial judgments for congressional discipline, characterizing the expulsion power as largely political and within each chamber’s discretion. Courts have noted the houses’ “almost unbridled discretion” to set expulsion standards and have been reluctant to intrude on that authority [8] [7].
6. Historical practice — rare, often linked to disloyalty or criminality
Historically expulsions are rare: the Senate has expelled 15 members and the House six; most expulsions (17 of 21 across both chambers) related to members who supported the Confederacy in 1861–62 [3] [4]. Other expulsions or near‑expulsions have occurred in cases tied to criminal conduct or perceived abuse of office [4] [9].
7. Distinguishing expulsion from exclusion, censure, and reprimand
Congressional authorities and scholars emphasize the difference between expulsion (removal of a seated member by two‑thirds), exclusion (preventing a person from being seated based on qualifications) and lesser punishments like censure or reprimand. The Supreme Court and constitutional commentators have insisted these are distinct processes with different legal constraints—Powell v. McCormack is a key example that limited exclusion but left expulsion as a separate congressional power [2] [7].
8. Political considerations and practical limits
Although the chamber controls rules and definitions, political realities often determine whether an expulsion is pursued: ethics committees, the full membership’s willingness to vote a two‑thirds majority, and the potential for resignation (which can moot proceedings) shape outcomes. Congressional reports note that sometimes proceedings are dropped or a member resigns before action concludes [3] [4].
9. What sources don’t say — procedural gap areas
Available sources describe common practices (ethics committees, subcommittees, reports, floor resolutions) but do not prescribe a single, uniform procedural script for every case; each chamber “determines the rules of its proceedings,” so precise steps vary by circumstance and over time [1] [5]. Specifics such as exact timing, evidentiary rules, or whether an expulsion trial mirrors judicial procedures are matters of chamber rule and precedent rather than constitutional text [2] [7].
10. Bottom line for readers — law plus politics
Legally, expulsion is straightforward: the chamber may expel a member by a two‑thirds vote [1]. Practically, it proceeds through investigations and committee reports and is rare because it requires strong evidence and broad bipartisan support; courts will generally leave those internal decisions to Congress [4] [8].