Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
This resolution directs the House Sergeant at Arms to identify which Members ignored the Speaker's order to leave the Well on March 6, 2025, and then requires the Speaker to remove those identified Members from all standing committees for the rest of the 119th Congress. It is an internal House action that changes committee assignments and does not create or change federal law. The removal would take effect only if the House adopts this resolution.
This is a House simple resolution, so it only needs passage in the House and does not go to the President; it does not become federal law. If adopted, it would apply to House operations and committee memberships for the current Congress.
This House resolution directs the Sergeant at Arms to identify Members who ignored the Speaker’s order to leave the Well of the House on March 6, 2025.
Those identified, upon the Sergeant at Arms’ submission of the list to the Speaker, would be removed from any standing House committee on which they serve for the remainder of the 119th Congress.
The resolution sets a one‑week deadline for the Sergeant at Arms’ determination and does not specify an appeal or further procedure.
Narrow, internal, low fiscal impact makes adoption plausible if the House majority is united; procedural fairness concerns and partisan conflict lower broad support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution is an administrative/operational directive that names a responsible officer and a short timeline and mandates a consequential personnel action. It provides a clear, concise directive but omits many procedural specifics and legal integrations that would typically accompany a lasting punitive administrative action within House operations.
Acceptance of immediate discipline vs demand for due process
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Acceptance of immediate discipline vs demand for due process
Likely to support holding Members accountable for behavior that disrupted House proceedings and threatened institutional norms.
However, this persona would insist on transparent standards and due process to avoid partisan or selective punishment.
Supports enforcing House rules and restoring order but is concerned about procedural fairness and proportionality.
Wants evidence-based findings and a narrowly tailored, time-limited remedy rather than an automatic, permanent sanction without review.
May accept the need to discipline members who blatantly defy chamber orders, but is likely wary of concentrated power in the Speaker and the absence of a full House vote or explicit procedural safeguards.
Concern centers on precedent and protection of minority rights within the chamber.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, internal, low fiscal impact makes adoption plausible if the House majority is united; procedural fairness concerns and partisan conflict lower broad support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Acceptance of immediate discipline vs demand for due process
Narrow, internal, low fiscal impact makes adoption plausible if the House majority is united; procedural fairness concerns and partisan con…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution is an administrative/operational directive that names a responsible officer and a short timeline and mandates a consequential personnel action. It provides a cl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.