Arizona is taking the U.S. House of Representatives to court, accusing Speaker Mike Johnson of unlawfully blocking a duly elected representative from taking her seat—all while citing a “Pelosi precedent” that Arizona’s top attorney calls unconstitutional and politically motivated.
Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat who won a special election in late September to fill a vacant House seat, still hasn’t been sworn in. Why? According to Speaker Johnson, the House isn’t in session, and he says he’s just following the example set by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi—waiting until the legislative body returns to Washington.
But Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes isn’t buying it.
“This case is about whether someone duly elected to the House,” Mayes wrote in a lawsuit filed Tuesday, “may be denied her rightful office simply because the Speaker has decided to keep the House out of ‘regular session.’”
Johnson, speaking at a press conference Monday, defended the delay by pointing to timing.
“She won her race after the House had already gone out of session,” Johnson said. “So I will administer the oath to her on the first day we come back [to] legislative session. I’m willing and anxious to do that.”
But Arizona’s lawsuit paints a much different picture—one that accuses Johnson of playing games with constitutional duties for political leverage.
“The Constitution does not give that authority to the Speaker—or anyone else,” the suit argues. Grijalva, it notes, meets all the qualifications required to serve. And if someone wants to remove her, there’s a process for that: seat her, then vote to expel her with a two-thirds majority. What isn’t allowed, according to the lawsuit, is to block her from even taking the oath in the first place.
“The Constitution does not specify who must administer the oath, only that Representatives must take it,” the filing states. That’s a key argument in Mayes’ push to let someone else—anyone legally authorized—swear in Grijalva if Johnson continues to stall.
And there may be more at play than just scheduling conflicts. The suit alleges that Johnson’s refusal is tied to political maneuvering—namely, avoiding a procedural move Grijalva could support to force a vote on releasing records related to Jeffrey Epstein. The suit also suggests Johnson may be trying to “strengthen his hand in the ongoing budget and appropriations negotiations.”
Mayes says Johnson’s actions are not just hurting Grijalva—they’re shortchanging the people of Arizona.
“The Speaker has been in the Capitol during this time and has not identified any reason that he (or a designee) is unable to administer the oath to Ms. Grijalva,” Mayes notes. She adds that Johnson doesn’t contest Grijalva’s qualifications or the legitimacy of her win. There’s simply “no practical reason why he is unable to administer the oath.”
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., argues that Johnson’s refusal isn’t just a procedural hiccup—it’s a constitutional violation that’s silencing a state’s voice in Congress for no valid reason.
Now, Arizona is asking the courts to step in and either force Johnson to do his job—or allow someone else to do it for him.
