Rumor of Court-Ordered Swearing-In Debunked as Grijalva Lawsuit Against Speaker Johnson Remains Unresolved

A widely circulated claim that a federal judge ordered Speaker of the House Mike Johnson to swear in Arizona Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva has been proven false, according to court records and public statements from congressional leadership. The misinformation, which spread rapidly across social media in early November, has fueled political tensions around a procedural dispute that remains tied up in federal court.

Grijalva, a Democrat who won the September 23 special election, has not yet taken the oath of office necessary to assume her role in the U.S. House of Representatives. Her swearing-in has been delayed for weeks, prompting criticism, confusion, and ultimately a lawsuit filed jointly by the representative-elect and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. The complaint, submitted on October 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks a judicial order compelling Speaker Johnson — or any authorized official — to administer the oath without further delay.

Despite the lawsuit, no ruling has been issued. As of November 7, the case docket showed no judicial decisions, no emergency orders, and no action requiring Johnson to swear in Grijalva “immediately,” contrary to the viral posts circulating online. The claim gained traction after activists and commentators inaccurately cited the existence of a court order, leading some users to celebrate what they believed was a decisive legal victory. But docket entries available to the public through CourtListener show that the most recent filings were routine administrative submissions from late October.

The falsehood grew rapidly across platforms like Facebook and X, where users framed the nonexistent ruling as a rebuke of Speaker Johnson and House Republican leadership. Some posts claimed the delay was part of an effort to prevent Grijalva from participating in ongoing political clashes, including efforts to force a vote related to the so-called Epstein files. However, no evidence in court records or official statements supports these assertions.

Johnson, for his part, has maintained that he is following long-standing House precedent by waiting to swear in the representative-elect until the chamber returns to session. In a statement provided to Snopes in October, the Speaker said that this practice was previously followed by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and that he intends to uphold it. “The House swears in new members when it reconvenes,” Johnson said. “This is longstanding procedure.”

At present, the House is not in session due to an ongoing government shutdown, which has further complicated the timeline for any official swearing-in ceremonies. Without regular legislative business scheduled, Johnson has argued that there is no immediate need to bring members back to the chamber or perform an off-session oath. Critics, including Grijalva and Attorney General Mayes, contend that the delay deprives Arizona residents of representation and violates the rights of the duly elected member.

The lawsuit reflects those frustrations. It argues that Speaker Johnson has “not identified any valid reason for refusing to promptly seat Ms. Grijalva,” noting in particular that he swore in two Republican lawmakers earlier this year during periods when the House was also not in session. That detail, highlighted on Page 9 of the complaint, has become a focal point in the debate over whether the Speaker’s explanation is consistent or selective.

The plaintiffs also allege that the delay may be politically motivated, pointing to Grijalva’s stated intention to support certain legislative actions, including signing a discharge petition requiring a floor vote. On Page 3 of the complaint, they argue that Johnson “wishes to delay seating Ms. Grijalva” for political advantage, whether in budget negotiations or in relation to controversial votes. Johnson has categorically rejected such claims, dismissing the lawsuit as a “publicity stunt” even before it was officially filed.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee known for his conservative judicial leanings. His role has drawn attention from political observers, though legal analysts note that the case raises constitutional questions about congressional authority that extend beyond partisan characterization. It remains unclear when the court will take further action or whether it will intervene at all in an internal procedural matter involving Congress.

For now, the facts remain straightforward: Grijalva has not been sworn in, the lawsuit is active but unresolved, and no judge has issued any order requiring Mike Johnson to take immediate action. The swirling claims of a judicial mandate are unfounded, and the dispute continues to play out through official legal channels rather than social-media declarations.

As Arizona’s 7th District waits for its newly elected representative to formally assume office, the standoff underscores both the complexity of congressional procedure and the speed with which misinformation can cloud public understanding. Until the House reconvenes or the court rules otherwise, Grijalva’s status remains in limbo — and online narratives, for now, remain ahead of the facts.