President Donald Trump’s push to remove Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar from Congress could trigger an unprecedented constitutional battle over citizenship and congressional qualifications.
The dispute follows a federal investigation examining allegations that Omar improperly obtained U.S. citizenship through immigration paperwork connected to her late father.
Omar has repeatedly denied immigration fraud, and federal authorities have not charged her or established that she obtained citizenship unlawfully.
Homeland Security Investigations agents searched Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence Oct. 12 after the Justice Department secured a court-authorized search warrant.
Agents reportedly seized Omar’s cellphone, computers, notebooks and passport as investigators continued examining her immigration and naturalization history.
Federal investigators have also subpoenaed relatives and reviewed immigration records as part of an inquiry into whether Omar’s citizenship could potentially be revoked.
Trump has repeatedly demanded Omar leave Congress while citing longstanding allegations concerning her immigration history and previous marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.
Omar has denied allegations that Elmi is her brother or that their marriage involved immigration fraud, and those allegations remain unproven.
“Let’s get her the Hell out of there,” Trump said Monday while discussing Omar during an appearance in Mississippi.
The president cannot personally remove a member of Congress, leaving any attempt to oust Omar dependent upon constitutional procedures and potentially federal courts.
The Constitution requires House members to be at least 25, citizens for seven years and inhabitants of the states they represent when elected.
That citizenship requirement could become crucial if federal authorities ultimately obtain a court judgment revoking Omar’s naturalization.
Omar was born in Somalia, arrived in the United States as a refugee and became a naturalized American citizen in 2000.
Legal experts say the dispute could eventually raise questions not squarely resolved by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1969 decision in Powell v. McCormack.
That case involved Democratic Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., whom the House refused to seat following allegations involving congressional funds and payroll practices.
The Supreme Court concluded Congress could not exclude a duly elected member who satisfied the qualifications explicitly established by the Constitution.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo has argued that the ruling could actually support congressional action if Omar were legally determined not to be a citizen.
“Powell essentially means that Congress cannot add on to the minimum qualifications set out in the Constitution,” Yoo told Fox News Digital.
Because citizenship is itself one of those qualifications, Yoo argued Congress could enforce it if Omar were ultimately determined not to satisfy the requirement.
Constitutional scholar Cully Stimson similarly emphasized the distinction between excluding someone who lacks constitutional qualifications and expelling an already seated member for misconduct.
That distinction could become especially significant if Omar wins reelection Tuesday and the citizenship investigation remains unresolved when the new Congress convenes.
One potential scenario could involve House Republicans challenging whether Omar qualifies to be seated if authorities first produce evidence undermining her citizenship status.
Such an effort would almost certainly generate litigation over the evidence, procedures and constitutional authority available to Congress.
The alternative would be seating Omar and subsequently pursuing expulsion, which requires support from two-thirds of the House under Article I.
Republican Florida Rep. Randy Fine has already said he would seek Omar’s expulsion if federal investigators establish immigration fraud or citizenship problems.
“I absolutely will demand expulsion immediately,” Fine said while discussing what he would do if Omar were determined not to be a citizen.
Expulsion would present a different constitutional question because the Supreme Court has never directly decided a case governing Congress’ power to expel a member.
The Constitution expressly gives each chamber authority to expel its own members with a two-thirds vote.
The 2023 expulsion of Republican former Rep. George Santos could also become relevant because some misconduct examined by Congress originated before his election.
Stimson said lawmakers could potentially argue that immigration-related misrepresentations continued after Omar entered Congress, creating similarities to arguments raised during the Santos proceedings.
Omar also faces a separate investigation involving her financial disclosures and businesses associated with her husband, Timothy Mynett.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
