For more than a month, over 800,000 residents of Arizona’s 7th Congressional District have watched a political drama unfold that’s left their seat in Congress conspicuously empty. On Tuesday, October 21, 2025, that standoff boiled over into federal court as Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes—joined by Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva—filed a lawsuit against the U.S. House of Representatives. Their demand? That Grijalva, who won a special election by a landslide nearly four weeks ago, be sworn in immediately, even if Speaker Mike Johnson refuses to do the honors.
The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges Speaker Johnson’s decision to delay Grijalva’s swearing-in until after the ongoing government shutdown ends. According to ABC News, the lawsuit asserts, “This case is about whether someone duly elected to the House—who indisputably meets the constitutional qualifications of the office—may be denied her rightful office simply because the Speaker has decided to keep the House out of 'regular session.'”
Grijalva, the first Latina to represent Arizona in Congress and the daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, won the September 23 special election with nearly 70 percent of the vote. Her father, a progressive Democrat, had served the district for more than two decades before his passing in March. The victory was decisive, and the need for representation urgent, as constituents have been left without a voice or constituent services since the election.
But the celebration was short-lived. While federal law generally stipulates that the Speaker administers the oath to incoming House members, the suit argues that this power “does not allow Johnson to delay a member from taking office when there is no dispute about their election or qualifications,” as reported by Roll Call. In fact, the lawsuit requests that, if Johnson continues to refuse, any authorized official—such as a federal judge—be permitted to administer the oath.
Attorney General Mayes has been vocal about the consequences of the delay. In a letter to Johnson last week, she accused the Speaker of violating the Constitution and disenfranchising the voters of Arizona’s 7th District. “Speaker Mike Johnson is actively stripping the people of Arizona of one of their seats in Congress and disenfranchising the voters of Arizona’s seventh Congressional district in the process,” Mayes said, according to Newsweek. “By blocking Adelita Grijalva from taking her rightful oath of office, he is subjecting Arizona’s seventh Congressional district to taxation without representation. I will not allow Arizonans to be silenced or treated as second-class citizens in their own democracy.”
Grijalva herself took to social media to echo the sentiment, writing, “@AZAGMayes and I are going to court to ensure that 800,000+ Arizonans in AZ-07 are no longer silenced. @SpeakerJohnson’s obstruction has gone far beyond petty partisan politics—it’s an unlawful breach of our Constitution and the democratic process.”
Speaker Johnson, for his part, has dismissed the lawsuit as a publicity stunt. “I think it’s patently absurd. We run the House. She has no jurisdiction. We’re following the precedent. She’s looking for national publicity, apparently she’s gotten some of it, but good luck with that,” Johnson told reporters Tuesday evening, as quoted by Newsweek. He has insisted that Grijalva will be sworn in once the House is back in session and the government reopens, denying any political motivation or connection to other House business.
But critics, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Jamie Raskin, aren’t buying it. At a news conference Tuesday, Jeffries called the delay “a disgrace,” accusing Republicans of going on “vacation” during the shutdown and ignoring constituent needs. Raskin attempted to force a unanimous consent motion to swear in Grijalva, stressing, “We need to act on this. Ms. Grijalva’s hundreds of thousands of constituents deserve to be represented in Congress.”
Underlying the procedural wrangling is a fierce debate over the real reasons for the delay. Democrats allege that Johnson is stalling because Grijalva’s swearing-in would provide the critical 218th signature needed for a discharge petition—led by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie—to force a vote on releasing Justice Department files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Grijalva has openly pledged to sign the petition as soon as she takes office. Johnson, however, has repeatedly denied any link, stating on C-SPAN, “This has zero to do with Epstein.”
Meanwhile, Grijalva’s absence from office is having tangible effects. She has been unable to sign a lease for district office space, respond to constituent requests, or introduce legislation. As she put it at Tuesday’s news conference, “There is so much that cannot be done until I am sworn in.” Constituent services that continued after her father’s death ended on the day of the special election, leaving the district in limbo.
Some observers argue that the delay is not unprecedented. Johnson noted that Rep. Julia Letlow, a Republican from Louisiana, waited 25 days before her swearing-in ceremony in 2021, when Democrats controlled the House. However, others point to more recent examples that suggest the process can move much faster: in April, Johnson himself swore in Florida Republican Reps. Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine less than 24 hours after their special election victories, during a pro forma session. Johnson has said those circumstances were unique due to the House unexpectedly going out of session and the members’ families already being present in Washington.
Christian Fong, a University of Michigan professor who specializes in congressional procedure, told The Arizona Republic that the lawsuit is likely to have “very little” impact on the timing of Grijalva’s swearing-in, describing it as a “messaging point” rather than a substantive legal challenge. “This is the usual litigiousness that characterizes the relationship between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to elections,” Fong said.
Still, the symbolism is powerful. For many, the legal battle isn’t just about one congressional seat—it’s about the fundamental right to representation. As Grijalva stated, “Speaker Johnson cannot continue to disenfranchise an entire district and suppress their representation to shield this administration from accountability and block justice for the Epstein survivors.”
As the government shutdown drags into its fourth week and the House remains out of session, the fate of Arizona’s 7th District—and its more than 800,000 constituents—hangs in the balance. Whether the courts will intervene or the political stalemate will break remains to be seen, but for now, the people of Southern Arizona are left waiting, their voices caught in the crossfire of a high-stakes battle over power, precedent, and the Constitution.
