Recently, three Republican representatives asked the Supreme Court to hear their lawsuit against former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi over fines imposed for violating the House of Representatives mask mandate in 2021.
Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, and Ralph Norman of South Carolina sued after they were fined $500 each for entering the House floor without masks in violation of a rule Pelosi imposed in 2020. Their petition, filed Nov. 21, asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the rule violates the 27th Amendment’s requirement that changes in compensation not take effect until after the next election.
“In addition to concerns about pay increases, the Founders were also greatly concerned that diminishing congressional pay could be used to pressure Members from exercising independent judgment, which could prevent qualified men of modest means from serving in the new national legislature,” the representatives wrote in their petition.
“[F]inancial retaliation against members of Congress is a tool by which Members’ independence can be degraded,” they wrote. “It is crucial that the Twenty-Seventh Amendment be given effect, lest there be another means by which members of Congress are subjected to retaliation for their decision to act in accordance with the desires of their district rather than the desires of the Speaker of the House.”
The attorneys in our lawsuit against Speaker Pelosi just filed a Petition for Cert at the Supreme Court.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 28, 2023
Pelosi imposed salary reductions on me, @RepMTG, and @RepRalphNorman for our refusal to wear a mask in 2021. At issue: is the 27th amdt. to the Constitution even enforceable? pic.twitter.com/4sjiSGPpWN
The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals held in June that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause makes Pelosi and other named defendants, former House Sergeant at Arms William Walker and House Chief Administrative Officer Catherine Szpindor, immune from the lawsuit.
“[W]e hold the defendants have immunity from suit because the adoption and enforcement of the resolution were legislative acts within the jurisdiction of the House,” Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote for the majority.
The representatives told the Supreme Court that allowing the lower court’s opinion to stand would render the 27th Amendment “non-justiciable” and “open the floodgates to unfathomable discipline.”
“The House Rules, under this doctrine, could impose physical punishment, flogging, or even more medieval forms of punishment upon members, and, under the D.C. Circuit’s precedent, no judicial remedy would be available, the Eighth Amendment notwithstanding,” they argued.
via westernjournal
