In a bold legal move, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has initiated a lawsuit against the US House of Representatives for its delay in swearing in Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election on September 23. This legal action escalates a growing political confrontation over House procedures and the rights of newly elected officials.

The lawsuit, detailed in documents filed in the US District Court of the District of Columbia, challenges the refusal to administer the oath of office to Grijalva, arguing it infringes upon her constitutional rights. According to the Constitution, all elected representatives must take an oath of office to begin their term, a requirement the complaint insists has been unjustly withheld.

The crux of the issue, as stated by House Speaker Mike Johnson, is that the House is not in a regular legislative session due to an ongoing government shutdown, and traditionally, representatives-elect are sworn in when the session resumes. However, this delay has sparked controversy, with critics suggesting that Johnson's refusal to swear in Grijalva is strategically aimed at preventing her participation in critical votes, including one on a discharge petition related to the release of the Epstein files.

This petition, if passed, would compel the Department of Justice to release files concerning Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious figure whose legal entanglements and death have stirred significant public and political intrigue. Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khana have been vocal advocates for the bill, pushing for transparency and accountability.

In response to the delay, Attorney General Mayes' complaint seeks a declaratory judgment to affirm Grijalva's status as a House member upon taking the oath and suggests that if Johnson continues his refusal, any legally authorized official in the US, DC, or Arizona should be allowed to administer the oath.

This lawsuit not only highlights a significant constitutional debate but also underscores the intense political strategies playing out within the US House of Representatives. As the legal proceedings unfold, all eyes will be on the court's interpretation of constitutional mandates versus House procedural norms, setting a critical precedent for future congressional disputes.