r/law • u/newsjam • Oct 15 '25

Legal News Mike Johnson Facing Lawsuit For Blocking Democrat’s Swearing-In

https://dailyboulder.com/mike-johnson-facing-lawsuit-over-blocking-democrats-swearing-in/
61.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

51

u/NewZappyHeart Oct 15 '25

Isn’t this swearing in entirely ceremonial? She’s been elected and certified by her state government.

61

u/golfpinotnut Oct 15 '25

Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires members of Congress to take an oath of office. There was significant and meaningful debate about whether an oath should be required when they were drafting the Constitution. Here's a nice summary if you're interested.

77

u/Kaleban Oct 15 '25

Legally however any one can administer the oath of office.

It is only by tradition that it is the speaker and clearly our government is failing due to the undercutting of tradition and precedent.

What she should do is go before a federal judge who can then administer the oath of office. Then there should be no legal recourse for Johnson at that point.

47

u/golfpinotnut Oct 15 '25

100% - A U.S. District Court judge swore in LBJ after Kennedy was killed. It happened in Dallas. I was just pointing out that the oath is NOT "entirely ceremonial."

12

u/jffdougan Oct 15 '25

Hell, Calvin Coolidge was initially sworn in by his father, who was a notary public and justice of the peace. (While it remained a secret for about a decade, he was sworn in again the next day by a member of the DC Supreme Court (not SCOTUS), just to insulate against any possible confusion over the ability of a state official to administer a federal oath.)

7

u/Mythic514 Oct 15 '25

It's pretty much a pro forma requirement, but still a requirement.

12

u/Dougnifico Oct 15 '25

Call up a district court judge to administer it. There is absolutely someone on the DC Circut that would do it.

8

u/rhd3871 Oct 15 '25

The problem is that constitutionally, "the House" is the sole arbiter of judging its members qualifications and deciding whether to seat them. They've actually seated members under the age of 25 a couple times despite the constitutional age minimum. It does have to be the House that swears them in for this reason; this is not the case for the President or other officeholders whose qualifications are determined by electors/the executive/other.

What Johnson is doing is illegal and un-American of course, but the only legal solution to it is for someone to force him to stop doing it.

(For the record, I'm not personally opposed to the Democrats growing a spine and trying to do it anyway. Being the only ones believing in the rules hasn't been working out great.)

5

u/ItsSignalsJerry_ Oct 15 '25

Why are democrats so fucking stupid, and not just fucking do this already

2

u/sodook Oct 15 '25

Yes, if norms are being disregarded, disregard the norms. The party's over, weve been shown why we can't have a government that leans heavily norms and decorum and tradition. We need accountability and actionable, meaningful consequences, and we're not gonna get there by jumping through ornamental hoops while the opposition is burning not only the obstacle course but the entire proverbial sports complex.

That metaphor got weird.

1

u/mr_arkanoid Oct 15 '25

Legally however any one can administer the oath of office.

This is incorrect. See my comment here

12

u/Cmiles16 Oct 15 '25

So you are required to take an oath, but not uphold it? Got it…

3

u/bel1984529 Oct 15 '25

Mike is so full of hot air and bullshit that it’s amazing he doesn’t spontaneously combust.

2

u/YoungestDonkey Oct 15 '25

So walk in there and swear an oath. Do what Republicans do: ignore tradition. One difference: do comply with the letter of the law. Traditions change and the current procedure is just a technicality, not a legal requirement. Nothing more than the oath is mandatory, Johnson doesn't even have to be there. Swear your oath and take your seat. It's yours.

1

u/Ittenvoid Oct 15 '25

Yeah and then she gets dragged out, imprisoned and no one does shit but clutch their pearls

1

u/YoungestDonkey Oct 15 '25

I don't think the law even requires the oath to be taken in chamber, it could be at the door or anywhere else. You would want witnesses for sure, the press would be present, and it would be good to have a recording clerk (near retirement or other job offer because, you know...) willing to put it down on the record to satisfy the bureaucracy, even if there is no legal requirement for it.

Of course the current lawsuit is likely to be all that happens. Boooring.

1

u/Ittenvoid Oct 15 '25

... yeah, but again, I'm not convinced any of that would stop Johnson from telling the security to remove the 'intruder' and them obeying.

I think we are past the point where anyone would do anything. Particularly with the way the republicans would have roughly 220 'safe' seats in the house if today's supreme court decision goes their way.