What exact charges are named in the lawsuit against Mike Johnson and when was it filed?

1. What was filed and when — the procedural basics

The complaint was filed in federal court in the District of Columbia on October 21, 2025, with the State of Arizona and Grijalva named as plaintiffs and the U.S. House of Representatives and Speaker Mike Johnson as defendants; multiple outlets report the filing date and venue ^{[1] [3] [4] [2]}.

2. The core legal allegations — what the lawsuit actually accuses Johnson of doing

The suit asserts that Johnson unlawfully delayed or refused to administer the oath to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, a refusal that plaintiffs say exceeds the Speaker’s constitutional authority and effectively disenfranchises Arizona voters by leaving a House seat vacant ^{[1] [3] [4] [5]}.

3. The constitutional claims and statutory framing — how plaintiffs describe the injury

Plaintiffs frame their case as a constitutional injury: they contend the Speaker’s actions amount to deprivation of Grijalva’s rights and Arizona’s right to full representation in Congress, invoking language such as “constitutional rights cannot be used as a bargaining chip” and arguing the delay causes concrete injury to both the member-elect and the state’s constituents ^{[6] [3] [4] [2]}.

4. Specific remedies sought in the complaint — what plaintiffs want the court to do

The complaint asks the court to compel Johnson to swear Grijalva into office or, if he refuses, to permit another authorized official to administer the oath; it seeks a judicial declaration that the Speaker lacks authority to withhold seating and requests relief to end the alleged disenfranchisement ^{[3] [4] [2] [1]}.

5. Alleged motivations included in the pleading — context plaintiffs provide for the delay

The filing explicitly alleges that Johnson is delaying Grijalva’s swearing-in to prevent her from signing a discharge petition that would force a House vote seeking the release of Justice Department files related to Jeffrey Epstein and to strengthen his position in budget and appropriations negotiations, framing the refusal as politically motivated rather than based on qualifications ^{[4] [5] [7]}.

6. How Johnson and others responded to the lawsuit in contemporaneous reporting

Speaker Johnson publicly dismissed the lawsuit as “patently absurd” and accused Grijalva of seeking national publicity, a response reported across the outlets covering the filing ^{[3] [8] [4]}.

7. Limits of available reporting and what is not asserted here

Reporting summarized above documents the complaints’ allegations, the date and forum of filing, the relief sought, and the public responses; the sources do not provide the full text of every legal theory or every cause of action word-for-word in the complaint in these excerpts, so the precise legal labels (for example, the exact counts as captioned in the complaint) are best confirmed by consulting the complaint docket entry or the complaint itself in the D.C. federal court record ^{[1] [3] [4]}.