72 F.4th 319
D.C. Cir.2023Background
- In January 2021 the House adopted H. Res. 38 requiring masks on the House floor and authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to fine members $500 for violations.
- Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and Ralph Norman entered the floor without masks, were fined $500, appealed to the House Ethics Committee, and had fines deducted from pay after the appeals were denied.
- The Representatives sued the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer alleging constitutional violations (First Amendment, Twenty-Seventh Amendment, Discipline Clause, Compensation Clause, Presentment Clause).
- The district court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction under the Speech or Debate Clause.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding the adoption and enforcement of the mask resolution were legislative acts protected by the Speech or Debate Clause, so the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Speech or Debate Clause bars suit challenging adoption of H. Res. 38 | Massie: Clause doesn’t bar review of alleged unconstitutional House rule | House: Adoption of rules is a legislative act within House jurisdiction and is immune | Barred — adoption is a legislative act protected by Speech or Debate |
| Whether Clause bars suit challenging enforcement (fines and payroll deductions) | Massie: Execution/carrying out a resolution is not cloaked with immunity | House: Execution here is part of its power to punish members and is legislative | Barred — enforcement (fines/deductions) is legislative and immune |
| Whether House officers (Sergeant‑at‑Arms, CAO) are immune | Massie: Clause only names Senators/Representatives; staff/officers not immune | House: Precedent extends immunity to staff/officers performing legislative acts | Barred — officers are entitled to immunity for legislative acts |
| Whether alleging unconstitutionality or improper motive removes immunity | Massie: Alleged unconstitutional or bad-faith enactment should allow review | House: Immunity is absolute for legislative acts even if alleged unconstitutional or motivated improperly | Barred — allegations of unconstitutionality/bad motive do not defeat immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarthy v. Pelosi, 5 F.4th 34 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (held adoption and implementation of a House resolution were legislative acts protected by Speech or Debate)
- Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (defines categories of legislative acts protected by the Clause)
- Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880) (Speech or Debate Clause protects acts generally done in session related to House business)
- Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (internal rules and their execution are legislative for Clause purposes)
- Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) (immunity for legislative acts is absolute; alleging improper purpose does not lift protection)