Fact check: Are there any historical instances of someone other than the Speaker swearing in a House Representative?

1. Why this question matters now — a standoff over Adelita Grijalva that tests precedent and power

The immediate catalyst for renewed scrutiny is the refusal to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, which multiple news accounts attribute to Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to seat her, prompting litigation and public controversy about who can administer the oath. Reporting in late September and October 2025 documents that some Members were sworn during pro forma sessions earlier in the year, cited as precedents inconsistent with the Speaker’s stated practice, and that Arizona’s attorney general filed suit arguing the Constitution does not fix the oath’s administrator ^{[1] [5] [2]}. This dispute pits political calculation against procedural precedent, with advocates for Grijalva pointing to past swearing-ins and legal filings, while House leadership relies on traditional control over the process ^{[1] [3]}.

2. What the House’s own materials and rules say — the contours of lawful authority

House guidance compiled in October 2025 and historical summaries affirm that the House controls seating and has the authority to determine who may administer the oath, listing the Speaker, an elected Speaker Pro Tempore, or a designee authorized by House resolution as the lawful options for swearing in Representatives ^[3]. The House History and Archives traces the mass swearing-in practice to Speaker Nicholas Longworth in 1929 and notes evolution of the oath itself, establishing that practices have changed and are not frozen by a constitutional command that names a specific administrator ^[4]. The legal and institutional baseline therefore recognizes flexibility but reserves final judgment to the House, making procedural delegation possible but subject to internal political choices ^{[3] [4]}.

3. What journalists and litigants have documented — precedents and contested examples

Reporting from late September through October 2025 catalogs several episodes used as precedents in the Grijalva dispute: instances where members were sworn during pro forma or special sessions, and past delays in seating members such as Rep. Julia Letlow and Rep. Chris Jacobs are cited as context for both rapid and protracted swearing-in practices ^{[1] [2]}. Coverage highlights Florida Republicans’ early-year pro forma swearing-ins and quick oath administrations for other members as evidence that alternative timing and administrators have occurred, directly challenging assertions that only the full convening with the Speaker present constitutes normal practice ^{[1] [5]}. These accounts support the argument that political actors have used procedural flexibility in different directions over time.

4. Legal argument in court — the Arizona lawsuit and constitutional silence

Arizona’s Democratic Attorney General Kristin Mayes filed suit against the Republican-led House asserting that the Constitution does not mandate a particular officer to administer a Representative’s oath, and that the House cannot indefinitely block seating without a lawful basis ^[2]. The complaint leverages House historical flexibility and the absence of a named administrator in constitutional text to argue that procedural roadblocks are unlawful, while House-authored explanations emphasize the body’s right to judge its own elections and to set internal delegation rules—a tension between constitutional silence and institutional prerogative ^{[2] [3]}. The litigation frames the question not only as a precedent dispute but as a constitutional-administrative test of House authority.

5. Big-picture synthesis — precedent exists but power remains political and procedural

Taken together, the evidence in recent reporting and House archival material shows that other actors have, at times, administered oaths or facilitated swearing-ins under delegated or exceptional circumstances, and that the House’s own documentation acknowledges evolution in practice and legal authority to designate who swears in members ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Yet the controlling reality is that the House retains exclusive power to determine seating and oath procedures, which turns the question from a purely historical or legal one into a political exercise whenever leadership chooses to assert control; recent litigation and contemporary examples illustrate both the precedents for alternative swearing-ins and the limits imposed by institutional prerogative ^{[2] [3]}. Resolving disputes thus requires both legal adjudication and political negotiation.