Directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and publicly release records of the Committee's review of violations or alleged violations of clause 9 (as it pertains to acts of sexual harassment) and clause 18 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Enumerated powers · passes

The resolution is an exercise of the House's constitutional authority to discipline its own Members and to determine the rules of its proceedings. Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 grants each House the power to punish its Members for disorderly behavior and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, to expel a Member. Additionally, Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 allows each House to determine the rules of its proceedings. Directing the Committee on Ethics to preserve and release records is a valid exercise of this internal governance power.

Bill of Rights · passes · severity: minor

The resolution does not directly infringe upon the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It does not restrict speech, religion, assembly, press, petition, arms, quartering, search and seizure, self-incrimination, due process, takings, fair trial, jury, cruel and unusual punishment, or unenumerated rights. The public release of records could implicate the due process rights of accused Members under the Fifth Amendment, but the resolution does not mandate a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process; it merely directs the release of records. The redaction of personally identifiable information of victims and witnesses helps protect privacy interests, but the accused Members' due process rights may be affected if the release occurs before a fair hearing. However, the resolution does not itself deny due process; it is a directive to the Ethics Committee, which must still operate within constitutional bounds.

Individual liberty · passes · severity: minor

The resolution restricts the privacy of accused Members by requiring public release of investigative records. However, the government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the House and addressing sexual harassment and assault. The restriction is narrowly tailored: it applies only to records of violations or alleged violations of specific rules, and it requires redaction of personally identifiable information of victims and witnesses. The accused Members' reputational interests are significant, but the public interest in transparency and accountability in cases of sexual misconduct provides a compelling justification. The burden on the individual is not excessive, as the resolution does not restrict speech, labor, or belief, but rather the confidentiality of certain records.

Decentralization · passes

This resolution concerns the internal procedures of the House of Representatives, a federal institution. The decentralization test is not directly applicable to internal congressional governance, as it is not a matter that could be handled by individuals, local communities, or states. The resolution does not consolidate decision-making at a higher level than necessary; it is a decision made by the House itself, which is the appropriate level for its own rules and discipline. Therefore, the resolution passes the decentralization test by default, as it does not involve a transfer of power from lower levels of government.

Due process and takings · raises concerns · severity: significant

The resolution raises due process concerns for accused Members. The public release of investigative records, including reports, conclusions, and recommendations, could occur before the accused has had a full and fair hearing. This could prejudice the accused's reputation and potentially affect their ability to receive a fair proceeding. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires that government actions be fair and not arbitrary. While the resolution does not itself adjudicate guilt, the release of potentially damaging materials before a final determination could be seen as a deprivation of a liberty interest (reputation) without adequate procedural safeguards. The resolution does not provide for notice or an opportunity to be heard before the release. However, the resolution is a directive to the Ethics Committee, which may have its own procedures, but the resolution itself does not ensure due process for the accused. Therefore, this check fails due to the potential for arbitrary and prejudicial release of records.