Republican representatives challenged Nancy Pelosi’s mask mandate at the Supreme Court

Three Republican representatives recently asked the Supreme Court to hear their lawsuit against former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over fines imposed for violating the House’s 2021 mask mandate.

Republican representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Majorie Taylor Green of Georgia and Ralph Norman of South Carolina sued after being fined $500 each for entering the House floor without masks in violation of a Pelosi rule imposed in 2020. His petition, filed on November 21, question the Supreme Court to consider whether the rule violates the 27th Amendment’s requirement that changes in compensation not take effect until after the next election.

“In addition to concerns about pay raises, the founders were also very concerned that reduced pay in Congress could be used to pressure members to exercise independent judgment, which could prevent qualified men of modest means from serving in the new national legislature,” the representatives wrote. in your request.

“[F]Financial retaliation against members of Congress is a tool by which the independence of members can be degraded,” they wrote. “It is crucial that the Twenty-seventh Amendment be given effect, for there is no other means by which members of Congress are subject to retaliation for their decision to act in accordance with the wishes of their district rather than the wishes of the President of Congress. home.”

The lawyers for our lawsuit against Speaker Pelosi have just filed a petition for certification with the Supreme Court.

Pelosi imposed pay cuts on me, @RepMTGi @RepRalphNorman for our refusal to wear a mask in 2021. At issue: is the 27. in the Constitution even enforceable? pic.twitter.com/4sjiSGppWN

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 28, 2023

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit retained in June that the Speech or Debate of the Constitution Clause makes Pelosi and other named defendants, former Sergeant-at-Arms William Walker and House Chief Administrative Officer Catherine Szpindor, immune from suit.

“[W]We hold that the defendants have immunity from suit because the adoption and enforcement of the Resolution were legislative acts within the jurisdiction of the House,” Trump appointee Judge Neomi Rao wrote for the majority.

Representatives told the Supreme Court that allowing the lower court’s opinion to stand would make the 27th Amendment “unjusticiable” and “open the floodgates to unfathomable discipline.”

“The Rules of the House, under this doctrine, could impose corporal punishment, flogging, or even more medieval forms of punishment on members, and under D.C. Circuit precedent, no judicial remedy would be available, notwithstanding the Eighth Amendment,” they argued.

Katelynn Richardson’s latest posts (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.

JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and good conversation. If you’ve commented with us before, we’ll need you to re-enter your email address for this. The public won’t see it and we won’t share it.