It’s been over a month since Adelita Grijalva, daughter of the late Representative Raúl Grijalva, won a decisive special election to represent Arizona’s 7th Congressional District. Yet, as of late October 2025, she remains in political limbo—caught in a procedural and legal standoff that has left more than 800,000 Arizonans without a voice in the U.S. House of Representatives. The controversy, now the subject of a high-profile federal lawsuit, has ignited fierce debate in Washington and across Arizona, raising fundamental questions about constitutional rights, political power, and the responsibilities of congressional leadership.
According to Reproductive Freedom for All, a national advocacy group, Speaker Mike Johnson’s refusal to swear in Grijalva stands out as a partisan maneuver. Their October 23 press release did not mince words: “It’s been one month since Adelita Grijalva was elected to represent Arizonans, but because Speaker Johnson won’t do his job, 812,000 Arizonans are without a voice in Congress. It’s been one month, and none of her GOP colleagues in the state have said a peep about it, including neighboring Representative Juan Ciscomani. Instead of patronizing Rep.-Elect Grijalva and saying she ‘doesn’t know how it works around here,’ Speaker Johnson should end his obstruction of Arizona’s first Latina and swear Adelita in.”
Grijalva’s victory on September 23, 2025, was historic on several fronts. Not only did she secure nearly seventy percent of the vote, but she also became the first Latina elected to Congress from Arizona. The state completed its official canvass and sent her certificate of election to the House on October 14, meeting every legal and procedural requirement for her to take office. Yet, the expected next step—her swearing-in—has not materialized. Speaker Johnson, who has already sworn in several newly elected Republican members this year, continues to withhold Grijalva’s oath, a move her supporters and several legal experts describe as extraordinary and deeply troubling.
The impasse has prompted legal action. On October 21, both the State of Arizona and Grijalva herself filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the House of Representatives and Speaker Johnson. The lawsuit, as reported by Bloomberg and detailed in the official court filing, centers on whether the Speaker has any constitutional authority to delay seating a duly elected member whose qualifications are not in dispute. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, representing the state, argues the Speaker’s refusal is not only unprecedented but also violates both federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
The complaint draws heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark 1969 decision in Powell v. McCormack, which held that Congress cannot refuse to seat a member who meets the Constitution’s three requirements: being at least twenty-five years old, a U.S. citizen for seven years, and a resident of the state represented. The plaintiffs argue that the Speaker’s role in administering the oath of office is ceremonial, not discretionary, and that delaying or withholding the oath amounts to an unconstitutional exclusion of a duly elected representative.
“The Speaker’s refusal to administer the oath mirrors the kind of exclusion the Court found unconstitutional in Powell v. McCormack,” the complaint states. It further argues that the Speaker’s conduct is “ultra vires”—a legal term meaning beyond one’s powers. The plaintiffs maintain that if the Speaker will not perform the ceremony, any other official authorized by law should be allowed to do so, as neither the Constitution nor federal statutes assign exclusive authority to the Speaker in this matter.
Judge Trevor N. McFadden, a conservative jurist appointed during the first Trump administration, has been assigned to hear the case. McFadden is no stranger to politically charged disputes, having previously ruled in favor of the Trump administration on several key issues, but also ordering the reinstatement of press access for major news organizations. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how future congressional vacancies and swearing-in ceremonies are handled—especially when political tensions run high.
Meanwhile, the practical consequences of the delay are being felt across Arizona’s 7th District. As of October 23, Grijalva’s office lacks a budget, a district office, a working phone line, or a website for constituents to contact. The number for her late father’s office still connects to a voicemail from the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, instructing callers to contact other Arizona representatives. For many in the district, this means urgent needs and federal issues are going unheard in Congress, a situation that has drawn condemnation from advocacy groups and Democratic officials alike.
Political observers note that the timing of the delay coincides with sensitive budget negotiations in the House, leading some to suspect that Grijalva’s swearing-in is being used as political leverage. The lawsuit itself cites Speaker Johnson’s public remarks linking her oath to the timing of the House’s return to regular session, rather than following the established practice of swearing in new members during brief pro forma meetings. Plaintiffs argue that this deviation from precedent is both unfair and harmful to Arizona voters.
The stakes extend beyond Arizona’s borders. Once sworn in, Grijalva would narrow the Republican majority in the House to 219-214 and provide the crucial 218th signature needed to force a vote on releasing files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein—a matter of ongoing public interest and controversy. Her absence, therefore, has implications not only for her district but also for national legislative dynamics.
Despite the mounting pressure, Speaker Johnson has not publicly provided a clear rationale for the continued delay. Supporters of the move argue, albeit quietly, that the Speaker is within his rights to manage House proceedings as he sees fit, especially during periods of intense legislative activity. Critics, however, see the maneuver as a blatant attempt to sideline a political opponent and disenfranchise a large, diverse constituency.
For now, the case of Ariz. v. House of Representatives (D.D.C., No. 1:25-cv-03740) is moving forward, with both sides preparing to argue not just the letter of the law but the broader principles of democratic representation at stake. As the legal battle unfolds, the people of Arizona’s 7th District remain in limbo—waiting for their new representative to take her oath and for their voices to be restored in Congress.
With the eyes of the nation watching, the outcome will likely reverberate far beyond Arizona, testing the boundaries of congressional authority and the resilience of American democracy itself.
