Overview
This resolution seeks to expel Representative Eric Swalwell from the United States House of Representatives based on allegations of egregious misconduct. The resolution alleges that Representative Swalwell engaged in sexual activity with a subordinate congressional staffer while she was too intoxicated to consent, constituting a severe violation of the House Code of Official Conduct. The resolution invokes the House's constitutional authority to discipline its own members and emphasizes that Members of Congress are held to the highest standards of conduct, particularly regarding the exploitation of authority for personal advantage. The allegations became public on April 10, 2026, leading Representative Swalwell to suspend his campaign on April 12, 2026. Mrs. Luna submitted the resolution on April 13, 2026, and it was referred to the Committee on Ethics for consideration.
Core Provisions
The resolution contains a single operative provision directing the expulsion of Representative Eric Swalwell from the House of Representatives. The factual basis for expulsion centers on allegations that Representative Swalwell engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate congressional staffer under circumstances where she was too intoxicated to provide consent. The resolution characterizes this conduct as exploiting his position of authority for personal advantage and as behavior that fails to reflect creditably on the House. The resolution explicitly invokes rule XXIII of the House Rules, which establishes the Code of Official Conduct requiring Members to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects creditably upon the House. The resolution does not establish any new programs, authorize funding, or amend existing law beyond seeking the removal of a sitting Member.
Key Points
- Expulsion of Representative Eric Swalwell from the House of Representatives
- Alleged sexual activity with subordinate staffer who was too intoxicated to consent
- Violation of House Code of Official Conduct under rule XXIII
- Exploitation of authority for personal advantage
- Failure to conduct himself in a manner reflecting creditably on the House
Legal References
- U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2
- House Rules, Rule XXIII (Code of Official Conduct)
Implementation
The Committee on Ethics serves as the responsible body for processing this expulsion resolution following its referral on April 13, 2026. The resolution does not specify detailed procedural steps, timelines, or investigative protocols that the Committee must follow. Under standard House procedures, the Committee on Ethics would typically conduct an investigation, hold hearings if warranted, and make a recommendation to the full House regarding whether expulsion is appropriate. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office appears to have conducted or be conducting a parallel investigation, though the resolution does not clarify the relationship between any criminal investigation and the House's disciplinary proceedings. No funding mechanisms, reporting requirements, or compliance measures are specified in the resolution itself, as expulsion resolutions are procedural rather than programmatic in nature.
Impact
The primary and immediate impact of this resolution, if adopted, would be the removal of Representative Eric Swalwell from the House of Representatives, terminating his service and requiring a special election or other process to fill the vacancy in his congressional district. The alleged victim, identified as a subordinate congressional staffer, represents a direct stakeholder whose rights and welfare are central to the allegations. The resolution affects the institutional integrity of the House by asserting its authority to police member conduct and maintain ethical standards. No cost estimates, administrative burden assessments, or sunset provisions are included, as expulsion is a singular disciplinary action rather than an ongoing program. The broader impact includes establishing precedent for how the House addresses allegations of sexual misconduct involving power imbalances between Members and staff, particularly where consent is at issue due to intoxication.
Legal Framework
The constitutional foundation for this resolution rests on Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which provides that each House of Congress may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. This constitutional provision grants the House broad authority to discipline its own members without judicial interference, subject only to the two-thirds vote requirement for expulsion. The statutory authority derives from the House Rules, specifically rule XXIII establishing the Code of Official Conduct, which requires Members to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that reflects creditably on the House. The resolution does not create regulatory implications beyond the House's internal governance, does not preempt state or local law, and expulsion decisions are generally not subject to judicial review as they fall within the Speech or Debate Clause protections and the political question doctrine. The House's disciplinary authority is considered a core legislative function immune from external judicial oversight.
Critical Issues
Several constitutional and procedural concerns arise from this expulsion resolution. The two-thirds vote requirement for expulsion represents a high threshold that reflects the gravity of removing a duly elected representative and disenfranchising constituents. Due process considerations emerge regarding whether Representative Swalwell has received adequate notice, opportunity to respond, and procedural protections before facing expulsion, though the House has broad discretion in establishing its own disciplinary procedures. The resolution relies on allegations that appear to be under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, raising questions about whether the House should await the outcome of criminal proceedings or act independently. The timing is compressed, with the resolution submitted just three days after the allegations became public, potentially raising concerns about rushing to judgment without a thorough investigation. The allegation involves conduct that may constitute criminal sexual assault, yet the resolution does not reference any criminal charges, convictions, or findings of fact beyond the allegations themselves. Opposition arguments would likely emphasize the presumption of innocence, the need for thorough investigation before expulsion, and concerns about establishing precedent for expelling Members based on unproven allegations. Implementation challenges include ensuring that any Committee on Ethics investigation is thorough, fair, and provides adequate procedural protections while also addressing the serious nature of the allegations involving potential sexual assault of a subordinate employee.
Key Points
- Two-thirds vote requirement creates high bar for expulsion
- Due process protections for Representative Swalwell remain ambiguous
- Relationship between House proceedings and criminal investigation unclear
- Compressed timeline from public allegations to expulsion resolution (three days)
- Reliance on allegations without criminal charges or findings of fact
- Potential disenfranchisement of constituents through removal of elected representative
- Precedent implications for future expulsion proceedings based on misconduct allegations