Supreme Court Rejects House Republicans’ Appeal Over Refusal to Follow Mask Mandate

Ms. Greene reportedly incurred more than $100,000 in fines for violating the rule that masks had to be worn on the House floor due to the COVID pandemic. That amount was deducted from her $174,000 salary.

“The Representatives sued the Speaker of the House, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, claiming the adoption and enforcement of the Resolution violated the First Amendment, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, the Discipline Clause, the Compensation clause, and the Presentment Clause,” wrote the appeals court.

“The district court held the suit barred by the Speech or Debate Clause and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

According to the ruling, the speaker is protected from lawsuits challenging how the House is managed.

Overseeing the case in the appeals court were Judges Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee; J. Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee; and David Tatel, a Clinton appointee.

“The Representatives challenge the adoption and enforcement of the Resolution, which required wearing a mask in the Hall of the House,” the judges wrote.

“We cannot consider the merits of the Representatives’ constitutional arguments because their suit concerns legislative acts protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.”

That clause gives immunity from lawsuits that “extends to all legislative acts, including matters within the constitutional jurisdiction of the House,” the judges ruled.

“The House adopted the Resolution pursuant to its authority to ‘determine the Rules of its Proceedings,’ and it fined the Representatives pursuant to its authority to ‘punish its members for disorderly Behavior,’” the judges said, later adding that the resolution “and its enforcement are squarely within the jurisdiction of the House, and therefore legislative acts.”

Arguing for the representatives, among other attorneys, was Christopher Wiest, who wrote in the petition to the Supreme Court, “The refusal to wear a mask did not result in a disruption of congressional business.”
He argued, “Speech or Debate Immunity does not shield Congress in a way that renders pay claims non-justiciable.”

“A censure, a reprimand, the release of a House journal that condemned the Petitioners, or even, with 2/3 vote, a measure expelling the Petitioners, would be actions well within the ambit of Speech or Debate immunity,” Mr. Wiest wrote. “But here we deal with a pay claim.”

Mr. Wiest argued that the 27th Amendment clearly states, “No Law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

“A primary purpose of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment is to prevent the reduction of congressional salaries without an intervening election because the Founders expressly recognized the majority could misuse its power to threaten the integrity and independence of Members, thus dissuading individuals of modest means from serving in Congress,” he argued.

Though the amendment is often mistakenly considered as a restriction solely on Congress’ power to increase its pay, that was only one of the purposes, he said.