Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has initiated legal action against the U.S. House of Representatives and Speaker Mike Johnson concerning the delayed swearing-in of Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva. Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23, 2025, has not yet been sworn into office. The lawsuit, filed in Washington, D.C., contends that this delay impedes her constitutional right to assume office and represent her constituents.
Story Highlights
- Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has filed a lawsuit against Speaker Johnson regarding the delay in swearing in Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva.
- The U.S. House has been in an extended recess amidst a government shutdown.
- Grijalva’s vote is reportedly essential for a discharge petition concerning the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files.
- Democrats have referenced past precedents to advocate for Grijalva’s immediate swearing-in.
Legal Challenge to Speaker’s Authority
The lawsuit asserts that the delay in Grijalva’s swearing-in infringes upon her constitutional rights and the representation of her Arizona district. The timing of this legal challenge is notable, as Grijalva’s entry into office would reportedly provide the final signature required for a discharge petition to compel a House vote on the release of Jeffrey Epstein-related files. This petition has been a subject of discussion, highlighting the political considerations associated with procedural delays.
Historical Context and Current Situation
Historically, the House has conducted swearing-in ceremonies during pro forma sessions. An instance cited occurred on April 2, 2025, when two Florida Republicans were sworn in shortly after their elections. Critics argue that the current delay indicates an inconsistent application of rules, particularly as the House has continued to hold brief pro forma sessions despite an extended recess.
The ongoing government shutdown, which commenced after a short-term funding measure was passed on September 19, 2025, has further complicated the situation. This legislative impasse has left Grijalva’s Arizona district without full representation, impacting House operations and decision-making processes.
Constitutional and Political Implications
This legal case examines the relationship between congressional autonomy and judicial oversight. A ruling in favor of the Arizona Attorney General could establish a precedent for judicial involvement in congressional matters, potentially influencing legislative procedures. Conversely, a ruling supporting the House’s actions would reinforce congressional self-governance.
For the constituents of Arizona, the delay extends the period without full representation, affecting district interests and legislative participation. The concurrent government shutdown intensifies these challenges, underscoring the interconnectedness of political and procedural disputes. The outcome of this case is anticipated to affect future special elections and the functioning of representative democracy.
Watch the report: Speaker Johnson sued over refusal to swear in democrat needed for Epstein vote
Sources: