HRES-197-119
Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
Sponsored by Troy Nehls (R-TX)
What it does
This resolution would formally censure Representative Al Green of Texas for interrupting President Trump's March 4, 2025 address to a joint session of Congress and being removed from the chamber by the Sergeant at Arms. It would require Green to stand in the well of the House while the Speaker publicly reads the censure resolution.
Who benefits
Members and leadership who sought to formally condemn the disruption and reaffirm chamber decorum norms; no financial or programmatic beneficiaries exist since this is a disciplinary/expressive action.
Who is hurt
Representative Al Green, who would bear a formal reprimand on the congressional record affecting his institutional standing, though not his voting rights or salary; his constituents may see the censure as a rebuke of conduct they elected him to engage in.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that decorum during a joint session addressed by the President is a longstanding norm essential to the dignity of the institution, and that Green's conduct—continuing to interrupt after being warned and ultimately being escorted out by the Sergeant at Arms—crossed a clear line requiring formal accountability. They contend censure is a proportionate, non-removal response that lets the House register disapproval without expelling a member or stripping committee assignments.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that censure resolutions targeting a single member's political protest during a presidential speech risk being used as a partisan tool to punish dissent rather than genuinely protect decorum, especially given that disruptions of presidential addresses have occurred before without censure. They contend the House should apply consistent standards across members and warn that using censure this way could chill future floor protests by members expressing strong disagreement with the administration.
Constitutional context
Each chamber's power to discipline its own members through censure derives from Article I, Section 5, which gives the House authority to determine its rules of proceedings and punish members for disorderly behavior; courts have long treated such internal disciplinary matters as largely nonjusticiable political questions, consistent with the reasoning in United States v. Ballin (1892) regarding chamber self-governance.
Checks and balances
The House exercises its own internal disciplinary authority over a member with no involvement from the Senate, President, or courts, and the only check is the House's own future votes or the member's reelection by voters.
Historical precedent
The House has censured numerous members throughout its history for conduct ranging from financial misconduct to disorderly behavior on the floor, including recent censures in the 117th and 118th Congresses, though disruption of a presidential joint address is an unusual specific trigger.