House Republicans are weighing legal and constitutional measures in an effort to prevent New York City’s mayoral-elect from assuming office, citing a rarely invoked clause from the post–Civil War 14th Amendment. The provision, originally designed to bar former Confederates from holding public office, prohibits anyone who has engaged in insurrection or given “aid or comfort” to the nation’s enemies.

The push to disqualify the incoming mayor comes amid scrutiny over his past political statements and affiliations. Leaders of the New York Young Republican Club have argued that his calls to resist federal immigration authorities and ties to left-leaning organizations could fall under the amendment’s language. “There is a legitimate effort to examine whether he should hold public office,” said Stefano Forte, the club’s president. “The law exists for situations like this, and we believe it should be considered.”

Several House Republicans are reportedly reviewing whether Congress could take action after the election, using legislation or a resolution to declare the mayor-elect ineligible under the 14th Amendment. They point to a recent Supreme Court ruling in Colorado, which overturned attempts to block a former president from the ballot using the same constitutional clause. The Court determined that enforcement of the provision falls under federal authority, a decision some GOP lawmakers say empowers Congress to intervene.

With Republicans holding a narrow majority in the House, there is discussion of a post-election vote. However, such a measure would face substantial obstacles. A Democrat-controlled Senate could block action via filibuster, and any congressional declaration would almost certainly face immediate legal challenges in the courts. Constitutional scholars warn that attempting to use the insurrection clause in this context could trigger a protracted and politically charged court battle.

In addition to the 14th Amendment strategy, Republican lawmakers are pressing the Justice Department to review the mayor-elect’s naturalization process. They allege potential violations of the oath of allegiance taken during citizenship. In a recent letter, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) requested an investigation, citing the mayor-elect’s public remarks and political affiliations as inconsistent with the responsibilities of a U.S. citizen. “Statements in the past may indicate a refusal to uphold the obligations of citizenship,” Ogles wrote, calling for a thorough review.

Ogles and others have pointed to membership in certain political organizations and past advocacy that they claim could trigger denaturalization under current immigration law, which bars association with groups that promote violence or totalitarian ideology. Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) echoed these concerns, suggesting that omissions on the mayor-elect’s citizenship application—including his involvement with political organizations—warrant scrutiny. Fine criticized what he described as a broader ideological agenda that threatens the city’s governance.

The mayor-elect has strongly denied all accusations. In response, he described the claims as politically motivated attempts to undermine the democratic process. “No matter how often these allegations are repeated, they do not change the facts,” he said, calling the efforts “a blatant attempt to weaponize the law against a political opponent.”

A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed receipt of congressional letters but emphasized that responses to such inquiries have been delayed due to the ongoing federal government shutdown. “The Department does not comment on the status of ongoing or potential investigations,” the spokesperson stated.

Legal experts note that attempts to block an elected official through the insurrection clause are extremely rare and unprecedented in modern times. While the 14th Amendment’s language is clear, enforcement mechanisms are untested outside historical contexts, such as post-Civil War restrictions. As a result, any effort to prevent the mayor-elect from taking office could trigger a high-profile constitutional showdown.

Public reaction to the news has been mixed. Supporters of the mayor-elect argue that the legal challenges are an abuse of power designed to reverse the outcome of a democratic election. Critics contend that the law provides a legitimate framework for evaluating whether certain actions or affiliations should disqualify someone from holding office. Either way, the controversy is likely to dominate headlines in New York and in national political discussions in the weeks to come.

As the city prepares for a transition in leadership, the potential for federal legal intervention raises questions about the balance of power between local elections and national oversight. Regardless of the outcome, the situation highlights how historic constitutional provisions, even those enacted more than 150 years ago, can suddenly resurface in contemporary political battles.