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.
Have other US politicians refused traditional oaths of office?
Executive Summary
Other U.S. politicians have both refused and modified traditional oath practices in specific, documented cases, but those incidents are context-dependent and legally distinct from the current dispute over House swearing-in procedures. Historical deviations mainly involve presidents substituting or omitting a Bible during the presidential oath and past Speakers delaying swearing ceremonies; legal challenges about loyalty oaths concern different statutory regimes and courts have generally treated refusal-to-swear issues as fact- and context-specific rather than establishing broad prohibitions [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. When custom diverged from ceremony: presidents who skipped the Bible
Several presidents departed from the tradition of placing a hand on a Bible when taking the oath, demonstrating that religious trappings are customary, not constitutional requirements. Historical records show John Quincy Adams swore on a law book in 1825, Franklin Pierce and Theodore Roosevelt sometimes took the oath without a Bible, and Lyndon B. Johnson used a Catholic missal after President Kennedy’s assassination; Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his father without a Bible after Harding’s death. These decisions reflect exigencies and personal choice rather than formal refusals to accept office, and reporters in 2025 cited these precedents while noting that not using a Bible is legally permissible [1] [2] [3]. The pattern shows customary rituals can change without affecting the officeholder’s legal standing.
2. Delays versus refusals: what the House precedent actually shows
The present controversy over House Speaker Mike Johnson’s withholding of the oath for Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva has been framed as unprecedented by some and analogous to prior Speaker actions by others; the distinction between delaying a swearing and refusing an oath matters legally and politically. Reporting from October and November 2025 notes Speaker Johnson asserts he is following what he characterizes as a prior Speaker’s approach to delaying swearing in members under contested circumstances, while Arizona’s officials argue such a delay is arbitrary and harms constituents; a federal lawsuit filed by the state and Grijalva remained pending as of November 7, 2025 [4] [6]. The competing narratives reveal procedural disputes over qualifications, timing, and institutional authority, with courts being asked to decide whether delay equals denial.
3. The courtroom’s separate orbit: loyalty oaths and constitutional limits
Judicial precedent involving loyalty oaths and refusal to affirm allegiance addresses different statutory frameworks and constitutional questions than the federal oath-of-office context, and Supreme Court cases like Cole v. Richardson and Elfbrandt v. Russell shaped limits on compelled affirmations without demonstrating direct equivalence to elected-office swearing disputes. Legal commentary shows these cases concern state-imposed loyalty oaths for public employees and were decided on vagueness and First Amendment grounds, rather than on a federal officer’s right to be sworn despite opposition by a legislative leader [5] [7]. The jurisprudential record therefore provides tools for analysis but no ready-made rule that compels or forbids a Speaker’s procedural decisions in every circumstance.
4. Political narratives and institutional incentives: why actors frame precedent differently
Both proponents and critics of delaying or altering oaths advance narratives that serve institutional aims: speakers may cite past delays to justify preserving chamber control and adjudicative space, while opponents emphasize voters’ rights and immediate representation to press for prompt swearing. Coverage from October–November 2025 shows Speaker Johnson invoked precedent while Arizona officials framed the delay as arbitrary harm to voters, and media analysis drew contrasts with presidential deviations that were personal or situational rather than legislative gatekeeping [8] [4] [1]. The competing frames indicate political incentives shape how precedents are invoked, making neutral judicial assessment more consequential.
5. Bottom line for the public record: partial precedents, unresolved legal questions
The public record documents instances of deviation from customary oath rituals—most notably presidential cases where the Bible was not used—and instances of delayed swearing in Congress, but it does not show a clear, controlling precedent that resolves whether a Speaker may refuse indefinitely to swear an otherwise qualified representative without running afoul of constitutional or statutory duties. Contemporary litigation had not produced a definitive federal-court ruling as of early November 2025, leaving the matter to be resolved through legal process and potentially higher court review; historical loyalty‑oath cases inform doctrinal contours but do not directly decide the present institutional clash [1] [6] [9]. The evidence therefore supports the conclusion that deviation and delay have occurred, but each episode requires its own legal and factual resolution.