Kevin McCarthy v. Nancy Pelosi, 5f4th34

In May 2020, the House adopted House Resolution 965 to permit Members to vote and be recorded as present by proxy during a COVID-19 public-health emergency.
The Resolution allows the Speaker (or designee), after notification by the Sergeant-at-Arms and consultation with the Attending Physician, to designate a "covered period" (45 days, extendable 45 days) in which proxy voting is permitted.
Proxy procedures require a signed letter to the Clerk naming the proxy and specifying vote instructions for each item; no blanket/general proxies are allowed; proxies must be announced on the floor and the Clerk maintains a public proxy list; proxy Members count for quorum.
Speaker Pelosi authorized proxy voting in May 2020; extensions followed and the policy was implemented.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, other Representatives, and constituents sued Speaker Pelosi, the Clerk, and the Sergeant-at-Arms, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that H.R. 965 and its implementation are unconstitutional because Representatives must participate in person.
The district court dismissed the suit, concluding the Speech or Debate Clause bars judicial inquiry; the plaintiffs appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Speech or Debate Clause bars judicial review of the implementation of H.R. 965 (proxy voting)	Implementation acts (notification, designation, accepting proxy letters, counting proxy votes) are administrative/executive, not legislative, so not protected by the Clause	Clause bars questioning of legislative acts and extends to legislative implementation; the acts challenged are integral legislative acts (voting, quorum rules)	The Speech or Debate Clause bars the suit; implementation actions challenged are legislative acts and immune from judicial inquiry
Whether the court must decide plaintiffs’ standing	Plaintiffs claim injury-in-fact from quorum and voting changes and assert standing	Defendants argued lack of standing; alternatively relied on Speech or Debate immunity	Court affirmed dismissal on Speech or Debate Clause grounds and did not reach standing

United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169 (1966) (purpose of Speech or Debate Clause—to protect legislative independence)
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (Clause extends beyond literal speech/debate to legislative acts and to aides when performing legislative acts)
Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973) (Clause protects "legislative acts")
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880) (distinguishes non-legislative execution of authority that falls outside Clause)
Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (broad reading of Clause to protect congressional functions)
Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Periodical Correspondents' Ass'n, 515 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (administration and enforcement of internal House rules are legislative acts covered by the Clause)
Walker v. Jones, 733 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (distinguishes personnel/administrative matters not properly characterized as legislative)
Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (jurisdictional objections must be resolved before merits; discussion of Speech or Debate Clause scope)
Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967) (example of limits where Speech or Debate protections were unavailable to employees not performing legislative acts)
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) (limits of legislative immunity where conduct was not legislative)
Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (courts may address jurisdictional issues in any order)