The U.S. House of Representatives is moving toward an unprecedented series of expulsion votes this week, with two Republican lawmakers facing potential removal from Congress in rapid succession. Resolutions to expel Representatives Cory Mills of Florida and Nancy Mace of South Carolina have been introduced by members of their own party, setting the stage for what would be only the sixth and seventh expulsions in House history if both measures succeed.
The developments mark a rare moment of internal party conflict spilling into formal disciplinary action, underscoring growing tensions within the Republican caucus over conduct, ethics and allegiance to party leadership. While expulsions are extraordinarily rare — requiring a two-thirds majority vote in the full House — the simultaneous consideration of two such resolutions highlights a period of heightened accountability demands, even as political analysts note the high bar for success.
According to official House records, only five members have ever been expelled from the Chamber in its 235-year history, with the most recent occurring in 2002 when Representative James Traficant was removed following a criminal conviction. The current efforts against Mills and Mace, however, are not tied to criminal convictions but to allegations of misconduct and behavior deemed detrimental to the institution, raising questions about the evolving standards for expulsion in a deeply polarized Congress.
Resolutions Target Mills Over Conduct, Mace Over Party Loyalty
The resolution to expel Cory Mills was introduced by Representative Nancy Mace on May 14, 2024, citing a series of allegations including false statements about his military service, improper use of campaign funds, and conduct unbecoming of a member of Congress. Mace, who represents South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, filed the privileged resolution under House Rule IX, which allows for immediate consideration of expulsion motions.
In her statement introducing the resolution, Mace accused Mills of “repeatedly misleading the public and his colleagues” about his role in overseas military operations, particularly claims regarding his involvement in a 2021 hostage rescue mission in Ukraine. Multiple news investigations, including reports from The Associated Press and Military Times, have found discrepancies between Mills’ public accounts and official Department of Defense records, though Mills has denied any wrongdoing and maintains his service record is accurate.
Mills, a first-term representative elected in 2022, has responded by announcing he is considering a counter-resolution to expel Mace, alleging she has violated House ethics rules by leveraging her position for personal gain and engaging in conduct that undermines Republican unity. In interviews with conservative media outlets, Mills has framed the effort as retaliatory and politically motivated, though he has not yet formally introduced such a resolution as of May 16, 2024.
The move to expel Mace, should it proceed, would center on accusations that she has violated Republican caucus rules by publicly criticizing former President Donald Trump and supporting certain bipartisan initiatives, though no formal ethics complaint has been filed against her by the House Committee on Ethics as of this writing. House Republican leadership has not endorsed either expulsion effort, leaving the fate of both resolutions uncertain.
Historical Context: Expulsions in the House Are Exceedingly Rare
Expulsion from the House of Representatives is governed by Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that each chamber may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” The high threshold reflects the framers’ intent to protect legislative independence while reserving expulsion for the most serious breaches of duty.
Historically, expulsions have occurred only in cases involving disloyalty to the Union during the Civil War or criminal convictions involving corruption, bribery, or abuse of office. The five prior expulsions include:
- 1861: Three members expelled for supporting Confederate secession (John B. Clark of Missouri, John W. Reid of Missouri, and Henry C. Burnett of Kentucky).
- 1862: Benjamin G. Harris of Tennessee expelled for disloyalty.
- 1980: Michael Myers of Pennsylvania expelled after being convicted in the Abscam bribery sting.
- 2002: James Traficant of Ohio expelled following his conviction on racketeering, bribery, and tax evasion charges.
No member has ever been expelled solely for policy disagreements, partisan rhetoric, or internal party conflict, making the current efforts against Mills and Mace legally and historically novel. Constitutional scholars note that while the House has broad authority to define “disorderly behaviour,” expulsion based on political differences could raise significant separation-of-powers and free speech concerns.
“The Constitution gives Congress the power to police its own ranks, but that power is not unlimited,” said Eric Posner, Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, in a 2023 interview. “Expelling a member for speech or party loyalty, absent clear evidence of corruption or criminal conduct, would test the boundaries of what constitutes ‘disorderly behaviour’ under longstanding precedent.”
Process and Prospects: High Bar for Success
For either expulsion resolution to succeed, it must secure a two-thirds vote of those present and voting in the House, assuming a quorum is met. With 435 seats, this would require at least 290 votes if all members participate — a threshold that has historically proven insurmountable absent criminal conviction or clear evidence of treasonous conduct.
As of May 16, 2024, neither resolution has been scheduled for a floor vote. House Speaker Mike Johnson has not indicated whether he will bring either measure to the floor, and Republican leadership has urged restraint, preferring to let the House Ethics Committee investigate any allegations first. The committee has confirmed it is reviewing complaints related to both Mills and Mace, though it has not released timelines for completion.
If the Ethics Committee finds sufficient grounds for discipline, it could recommend sanctions ranging from a formal reprimand to loss of committee assignments — penalties that require only a majority vote and are far more common than expulsion. Historically, most members facing ethics investigations have resigned or chosen not to seek re-election rather than face expulsion.
Mills and Mace have both denied any intent to step down, with Mills telling reporters he intends to “fight these baseless allegations” and Mace stating she will “continue to represent my constituents without distraction.” Neither has indicated plans to resign amid the ongoing scrutiny.
Broader Implications for House Norms and Party Dynamics
The simultaneous push to expel two sitting members from the same party reflects deeper fractures within the Republican Conference, particularly between traditional establishment figures and those aligned with the more confrontational, Trump-aligned wing of the party. While Mace has positioned herself as a critic of Trump’s rhetoric and style, Mills has embraced close alignment with the former president, including vocal support for his legal challenges and election-related claims.
Analysts suggest the expulsions, even if unsuccessful, may signal a shift in how parties use internal disciplinary tools to manage intra-caucus conflict. “We’re seeing an effort to weaponize the expulsion process not just for corruption, but for ideological enforcement,” said Molly E. Reynolds, senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. “Whether that succeeds depends on whether members are willing to cross the two-thirds line — and so far, history suggests they are not.”
The outcome could influence future debates over the limits of congressional self-policing, particularly as both parties grapple with questions of accountability, free speech, and institutional integrity in an era of heightened polarization.
As of May 16, 2024, no floor votes on either expulsion resolution have been scheduled. The House is set to reconvene for legislative business the week of May 20, with leadership indicating focus will remain on appropriations, defense policy, and upcoming deadlines related to government funding.
Readers seeking official updates can monitor the House Committee on Ethics website for public statements or referrals, or consult the Office of the Clerk for legislative schedules and vote records.
What do you consider about the use of expulsion resolutions in intra-party disputes? Share your perspective in the comments below, and consider sharing this article to assist others understand this rare moment in congressional history.