What is the process for expelling a member of Congress?
Executive summary
The Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the power to expel a member by a two‑thirds vote; expulsions are rare — historically 21 total across both houses, most during the Civil War era — and the process typically starts with referral to an ethics committee for investigation [1] [2] [3]. House practice treats expulsion as distinct from exclusion (pre‑seating) and usually follows an ethics inquiry and a floor resolution requiring a two‑thirds majority of members present and voting [4] [5].
1. What the Constitution actually says — the legal core
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 is the operative text: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” That single sentence supplies constitutional authority for expulsion and the two‑thirds supermajority threshold; beyond that the Constitution offers no detailed procedure [1] [6].
2. How Congress has translated the clause into practice
In modern practice an expulsion resolution is usually referred to the chamber’s ethics committee, which may investigate and recommend action; the committee work and a subsequent floor vote convert the constitutional grant into a functioning process. The House and Senate have developed internal procedures over time, but neither chamber is bound by a single codified national rulebook beyond its own rules and precedent [5] [4].
3. Expulsion vs. exclusion vs. other punishments — important distinctions
Expulsion removes a Member after being seated and requires a two‑thirds vote. Exclusion is the pre‑seating denial of a Member‑elect and can be done by a majority. Less severe sanctions — censure, reprimand, fines — require lower thresholds and are far more common. Historically, the House has favored censure or allowing members to resign rather than using expulsion, reserving expulsion for the most severe or institutionally threatening conduct [4] [3] [5].
4. The historical pattern — rarity and politics
Only 21 members have ever been expelled: 15 from the Senate, six from the House, with 17 total expulsions tied to Confederacy support in 1861–62. The House has been especially reticent to expel members for conduct that predated their election; institutional caution and deference to voters have constrained use of the power [2] [3] [7].
5. Legal and procedural limits — what is contested
Although the Constitution imposes the two‑thirds voting rule, it does not define specific grounds for expulsion. Legislative history and court cases have left open questions — for example whether misconduct before election can justify expulsion — and the chambers have handled those questions through precedent, committee findings, and political judgment rather than a single judicially enforced standard [4] [8].
6. How a case typically unfolds today — from allegation to vote
A member can be investigated by the Ethics Committee (or a special committee), which gathers evidence and can recommend discipline. A fellow Member may introduce a resolution to expel; the committee’s report and the resolution can lead to a floor debate and a recorded vote. For the House, expulsion requires two‑thirds of Members present and voting; vacancies after expulsion are filled by special election per constitutional and statutory rules governing House vacancies [5] [4] [2].
7. Political dynamics and alternatives to expulsion
Expulsion is a political act as much as a procedural one. Chambers often prefer censures or members’ voluntary resignations to avoid the high political cost and the supermajority hurdle of expulsion. Congressional restraint reflects concerns about overriding the electorate’s choice and using internal discipline as a substitute for voters’ decisions [9] [7].
8. Current context: real‑world triggers and examples
Recent practice shows prosecutors, indictments, or criminal convictions frequently drive expulsion efforts, but many members under scrutiny resign before a vote. News reporting indicates members can also face forced floor measures — for instance, a Representative in 2025 announced plans to force a vote to expel a colleague after a federal indictment — illustrating how ethical, criminal, and partisan pressures converge on the process [10] [11].
Limitations, caveats and competing viewpoints
Available sources show consistent legal authority and broad procedural patterns but do not provide a single step‑by‑step legal code enforced across both chambers; much is left to chamber rules, committee practice, and political judgment [4] [5]. Sources disagree in emphasis: CRS and congressional archives emphasize legal restraints and institutional caution [9] [8], while contemporary reporting highlights the political weaponization of disciplinary tools in modern Congress [10] [11]. Available sources do not mention a uniform, court‑enforced checklist for expulsion proceedings.