Massie v. Pelosi
Civil Action No. 2021-2023
D.D.C.Mar 9, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Reps. Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ralph Norman) challenged the House’s mask policy and enforcement under H. Res. 38 after they appeared unmasked on the House floor in May 2021 and were fined $500 each; appeals to the House Ethics Committee were denied and fines were deducted from pay.
- The House’s mask policy was announced Jan. 4, 2021; it was amended May 11 and June 11, 2021 to permit temporary mask removal while under recognition and for fully vaccinated Members.
- Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, Article I (Sections 5, 6, 7), and the First Amendment (symbolic speech/viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech).
- Defendants (Speaker Pelosi in her official capacity, Sgt.-at-Arms Walker, and CAO Szpindor) moved to dismiss, arguing Speech or Debate Clause immunity and failure to state claims.
- The district court held that defendants are immune under the Speech or Debate Clause and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court also rejected plaintiffs’ Twenty-Seventh, Article I, and First Amendment arguments in its analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speech or Debate Clause immunity / jurisdiction | Enforcement actions (mask fines, payroll deductions) are administrative and not legislative so immunity doesn't bar suit | Enforcement of chamber rules and fines are legislative acts integral to regulating order/decorum and disciplining Members; absolute immunity applies | Court: actions fall within both Gravel categories (rules governing deliberation/voting and matters within House jurisdiction); defendants entitled to Speech or Debate Clause immunity; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Twenty-Seventh Amendment | Deducting fines from pay varies Members’ compensation in violation of the Amendment | Fines do not change statutory compensation; deductions are conditional disciplinary measures, not a change to compensation "ascertained by law" | Court: compensation means statutory salary set by law; deductions do not vary compensation for purposes of the Amendment; claim rejected |
| Article I §§6 & 7 (ascertainment, bicameral/presentment) | Any change to Member compensation must be enacted by statute (bicameralism/presentment); House exceeded authority | No change to statutory compensation occurred; Article I limits not implicated | Court: because fines do not alter statutory compensation, Article I §§6–7 do not bar House rule/fine; claim rejected |
| First Amendment (symbolic speech / viewpoint / compelled speech) | Refusal to wear a mask was protected symbolic speech and was punished because of viewpoint; compelled mask-wearing also violates speech rights | Mask policy targets conduct for health/safety, not expression; O’Brien test applies and is satisfied; ample alternative channels exist | Court: conduct was expressive but regulation is within House power, serves important health interest unrelated to suppressing expression, and is no greater than essential under O’Brien; First Amendment claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. Pelosi, 5 F.4th 34 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (administrative steps enabling proxy voting are legislative acts entitled to Speech or Debate protection)
- Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts; two-category framework for protection)
- Consumers Union v. Periodical Correspondents’ Ass’n, 515 F.2d 1341 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (regulation of press galleries as integral to legislative atmosphere; Speech or Debate bar)
- Walker v. Jones, 733 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (actor/act analysis under Speech or Debate Clause; limits on treating all House administration as legislative)
- Barker v. Conroy, 921 F.3d 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (limits of Clause for chaplain guest-program decisions; distinguishing non-legislative functions)
- Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (congressional disciplinary proceedings treated as legislative matters)
- United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972) (Speech or Debate Clause requires acts be integral to legislative process)
- Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (broad reading of Speech or Debate Clause to protect legislative independence)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (framework for assessing restrictions on expressive conduct)
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (protected student symbolic speech absent substantial disruption)
- United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892) (scope of congressional rulemaking authority and nonjusticiability in some internal rule challenges)