President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress could force an unprecedented Supreme Court ruling on citizenship and congressional qualifications as federal investigators examine whether her naturalization was obtained lawfully.
The dispute centers on a Justice Department investigation into Omar’s immigration history and the acquisition of U.S. citizenship. Homeland Security Investigations agents conducted a court-authorized search of Omar’s Washington residence in October, seizing documents and electronic devices as part of an ongoing inquiry into her naturalization records. Omar has consistently denied any wrongdoing related to her citizenship status, and federal prosecutors have not filed charges.
What Happened
Trump has publicly called for Omar’s removal from Congress, citing longstanding questions about her immigration background and her previous marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. “Let’s get her the Hell out of there,” Trump said during a Mississippi appearance, though the president lacks direct authority to remove members of Congress.
Omar became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2000 after arriving in the United States as a Somali refugee. She has denied allegations that her previous marriage involved immigration fraud or that Elmi is her brother. The investigation has included subpoenas to relatives and reviews of immigration records, with federal authorities examining whether her citizenship could potentially be revoked.
Any attempt to oust Omar would need to follow constitutional procedures and likely involve federal courts. The Constitution specifies that House members must be at least 25 years old, citizens for at least seven years, and residents of the states they represent. Constitutional law experts note that if authorities ultimately obtained a court judgment revoking Omar’s citizenship, it would fundamentally alter the legal landscape surrounding any removal effort.
The Reaction
Legal scholars have identified potential pathways for Omar’s removal depending on how the citizenship question is resolved. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo has argued that a 1969 Supreme Court decision in Powell v. McCormack, which prevented Congress from excluding a duly elected member who satisfied constitutional qualifications, could actually support congressional action if Omar were determined not to be a citizen. “Powell essentially means that Congress cannot add on to the minimum qualifications set out in the Constitution,” Yoo said.
Constitutional scholar Cully Stimson emphasized a key distinction: Congress cannot exclude someone who lacks constitutional qualifications from being seated, but the procedures and legal questions surrounding such a challenge remain unsettled. Republican Rep. Randy Fine of Florida has already indicated he would seek Omar’s expulsion if federal investigators establish citizenship problems, saying he would “absolutely demand expulsion immediately” under those circumstances.
The alternative to challenging Omar’s seating would involve expulsion after she has been seated, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House. This approach presents different constitutional questions, as the Supreme Court has never directly decided a case governing Congress’s power to expel a member for issues predating their election.
What This Means
The case presents several unresolved constitutional scenarios. If Omar wins reelection and the citizenship investigation remains unresolved, House Republicans could potentially challenge whether she qualifies to be seated based on evidence undermining her citizenship status. Such a challenge would almost certainly trigger litigation over the evidence, procedures, and constitutional authority available to Congress to make such determinations.
The 2023 expulsion of Republican former Rep. George Santos may inform the legal arguments, as some misconduct examined during that proceeding occurred before his election. Stimson noted that lawmakers could potentially argue immigration-related issues continued after Omar entered Congress, creating possible parallels to the Santos case.
Omar also faces a separate investigation involving her financial disclosures and businesses associated with her husband. The combination of ongoing inquiries means the constitutional questions surrounding her congressional status may not be fully resolved for months or years, potentially creating an extended legal dispute that reaches the nation’s highest court.
