Cohabitation ban for staff

Full Title:
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from cohabitating with any employee of the House of Representatives.

Summary#

This resolution would change House rules to forbid a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner from living with any employee of the House, unless the two people are married. The rule would be added to Rule XXIII of the House Rules. The resolution was introduced on July 30, 2026, and sent to the House Committee on Ethics.

  • Main change: Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner would not be allowed to cohabitate (live together) with any House employee, except if they are married to each other.
  • Who it covers: Elected House members (including Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and employees of the House.
  • Where it is added: A new clause inserted into the House Rules (Rule XXIII).
  • Current stage: Introduced and referred to the Committee on Ethics.

What it means for you#

  • Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner: They must not live in the same household with any House employee unless they are married to that person.
  • House employees (staff): Staff who are in unmarried romantic or domestic relationships with a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner would need to stop cohabitating or change their living arrangements.
  • Spouses: Married couples that include a Member and a House employee are explicitly exempted and would not be covered by this rule.
  • Roommates and non-romantic arrangements: It is unclear whether purely non-romantic shared housing or certain roommate situations are covered. The bill does not define "cohabitate."
  • Employers / Offices in the House: The bill does not explain how offices should enforce the rule, whether staff reassignments or other workplace changes would follow, or what official penalties would apply.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text and accompanying material do not include a fiscal note or cost estimate.
  • It is not specified whether enforcing the rule would require additional Ethics Committee staff, investigations, or administrative actions.
  • Potential private costs (for affected individuals) such as moving or changing housing are not estimated in the bill text.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce situations where a Member and a staffer live together, which could create unequal power dynamics or appearances of favoritism.
  • Supporters may argue this reduces risks of conflicts of interest, workplace pressure, or claims of inappropriate conduct that arise from close personal cohabitation.
  • The explicit exception for married couples indicates the bill is aimed at non-married domestic or intimate cohabitation rather than all shared housing.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill does not define "cohabitate," leaving unclear whether it would apply to roommates, temporary stays, or shared housing for economic reasons.
  • The rule intrudes into private living arrangements and could affect consensual relationships between adults who are not married.
  • It is unclear how the rule would be enforced, what penalties would follow, and whether enforcement would require investigations that raise privacy or administrative-burden questions.
  • The bill does not say whether it covers contractors, interns, fellows, or other non-employee individuals who work in House offices.