HRES-1193-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
Sponsored by Nancy Mace (R-SC)
What it does
This resolution would expel Representative Cory Mills from the U.S. House of Representatives under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which allows each chamber to expel a member by a two-thirds vote. The resolution cites alleged domestic assault, a Florida court injunction for dating violence, alleged federal contracting conflicts of interest while serving in Congress, financial disclosure irregularities, and disputed claims about a military award. It does not impose criminal penalties or civil liability — it would only remove Mills from his seat in the House.
Who benefits
Constituents of Florida's 7th Congressional District, who would eventually be represented by a replacement member. Alleged victims named in the resolution, who may benefit from public accountability. Members of Congress who argue the House's institutional integrity is served by removing members found to have engaged in misconduct. Competitors in any future special election to fill the seat.
Who is hurt
Representative Cory Mills, who would lose his elected office before the end of his term. His constituents in Florida's 7th District, who would temporarily lose representation during any vacancy period before a special election. Voters who elected Mills and may view expulsion as overriding their electoral choice. Mills's staff, whose employment would be disrupted. Any pending legislative work Mills is involved in would be affected.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the resolution documents a pattern of serious misconduct that brings discredit upon the House as an institution. They point to a Florida court's Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Dating Violence — a judicial finding, not merely an allegation — as well as the Office of Congressional Conduct's August 2024 finding of "substantial reason to believe" Mills held federal contracts while serving in Congress, which would violate House rules and federal law. They contend that expulsion is a constitutionally provided remedy for exactly this kind of conduct, and that allowing a member to remain seated despite documented judicial findings and ethics referrals undermines public trust in Congress.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that expulsion is an extraordinary remedy — used only five times in House history — and that applying it here sets a dangerous precedent of removing a duly elected member before criminal charges have been filed or proven. They contend that several of the resolution's allegations, including the assault and the Bronze Star dispute, remain unresolved allegations rather than adjudicated facts, and that the House Ethics Committee, to which the conduct was already referred, is the appropriate venue for investigation. They further argue that expelling an elected representative effectively disenfranchises the voters of Florida's 7th District before due process has run its course.
Constitutional context
Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 explicitly grants each chamber the power to expel a member with a two-thirds vote, which is the direct constitutional basis for this resolution. No Commerce Clause or agency authority issues are implicated; this is a purely internal congressional disciplinary action within the House's expressly enumerated self-governance powers.
Checks and balances
The House gains the power to remove one of its own members; the primary check is the two-thirds supermajority requirement under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2, which sets a high threshold designed to prevent purely partisan removals.
Historical precedent
The House has expelled only five members in its history — three in 1861 for supporting the Confederacy, one in 1980 (Michael Myers, convicted of bribery in the Abscam scandal), and one in 2023 (George Santos, following a House Ethics Committee report finding extensive fraud).