The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge brought by Republican lawmakers against an order mandating they wear masks when entering the House chamber. Some have disobeyed, incurring fines automatically deducted from their paychecks.
The Supreme Court justices refused to determine whether the mask mandate was in violation of the free speech or debate clause of the Constitution.
Refusal to Follow Mask Mandate
Three Republicans who had their pay docked during the COVID-19 pandemic for failing to abide by a mask mandate on the House floor during its debate have lost both rounds of federal court appeals for failing to do so. A judge in Washington D.C. determined that these lawmakers are immune from lawsuits under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause; which shields lawmakers from criticism over actions they take as part of their legislative duties.
Reps. Thomas Massie, Ralph Norman and Marjorie Taylor Greene’s attempts at appealing their $500 pay deductions were denied by the Supreme Court without comment or any explanation from lower courts; their appeals had affirmed lower courts’ ruling that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to settle congressional rules disputes between lawmakers. It also established a significant precedent that allows legislative bodies to enforce their own rules against members. Although it is a disappointment for Massie, Norman, Taylor Greene it should not come as much of a shock that justice wasn’t sought in court by seeking justice there
The Court Rejects the Claim That the Fines Are Unconstitutional
In a swift order without noted dissents, the justices upheld $500 fines imposed against Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia and Ralph Norman of South Carolina for violating a mask mandate on the House floor during a pandemic outbreak. They had claimed this policy violated First Amendment, 27th Amendment and Discipline Compensation Presentment Clauses clauses of their constitutions.
They further claimed that the policy violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Fifth Amendment by being grossly disproportional to the gravity of any offense committed.
This week, the House’s Attending Physician reinstated a Covid-19 mask requirement in all office buildings, meeting areas, and the chamber. According to him, this measure is necessary in order to protect members from infection and ensure those sick don’t spread viruses to others within the Capitol complex. He advises wearing masks while working or traveling within it.
The Court Rejects the Claim That the Fines Are Unfair
The three Republicans claimed that their $500 fines violated their constitutional right to free speech and due process, but the court disagreed.
Thomas Massie from Kentucky, Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia and Ralph Norman from South Carolina each experienced a $500 pay deduction in 2021 after violating House rules requiring them to wear masks when voting during COVID-19 pandemic. Their reasoning? That the rule violated their constitutional rights as well as breaching a provision in the 27th Amendment which states Congress salaries cannot be adjusted until there has been an election and that congressional salaries shouldn’t change during an interim period between elections.
Lower courts had already determined that Republican lawmakers’ lawsuit was too late for review, with them citing how state Supreme Court should have issued earlier decisions declaring it too late; instead, federal court judge ruled earlier this year that the challenge still had validity.
The Court Rejects the Claim That the Fines Are Unjust
WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to revive a challenge brought by three Republican lawmakers who had their pay docked for failing to adhere to a mask requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic, but failed to comply with an earlier court ruling that limited their legal recourse against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her decision to institute such mandate, fining them $500 each time it was violated during an outbreak in May 2021. In a brief order without notable dissents or concurrences noted below, the justices let stand previous court rulings which allowed lower court decisions which let stand lower court rulings and confirmed lower court rulings which held against these lawmakers in court cases brought by attorneys representing them as individuals rather than against Pelosi over her decision and fined them annually thereafter.
The court asserted it lacked jurisdiction to review the lawsuit because Congress has vast powers over its internal rules, such as those related to microphone usage. Lower courts had also held that the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause provides lawmakers with immunity from lawsuits challenging their internal decisions.
Massie argued that the court’s decision “represents a grave affront to our Constitution’s checks and balances.” By refusing to address his lawsuit, the Supreme Court’s inaction could open the way for future legislation imposed fines by Congress to fall under the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment; which requires courts to consider each person’s financial circumstances when determining if any fine is excessive.
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff
