Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson

Last updated
Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 24, 2007
Decided May 21, 2007
Full case nameOffice of Senator Mark Dayton, appellant v. Brad Hanson
Docket no. 06-618
Citations550 U.S. 511 ( more )
550 U.S. 511 (2007); 127 S. Ct. 2018; 167 L. Ed. 2d 898
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Questions presented
  • Does the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution bar federal court jurisdiction of suits under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 by congressional employees whose job duties are part of the due functioning of the legislative process?
  • Was the Office of Senator Mark Dayton entitled to appeal the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directly to the Supreme Court?
  • Was the case rendered moot by the expiration of Senator Dayton's term of office?
Holding
The court did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinion
MajorityStevens, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) (Pub.L. 104–1)

Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550 U.S. 511 (2007) is a United States Supreme court case in which the court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act. This case was the first Speech or Debate Clause case the Supreme Court took up since 1979. [1]

Contents

Background

In 2002, [2] Brad Hanson worked as a State Office Manager [2] [3] for Senator Mark Dayton's Fort Snelling, Minnesota office. [4] Due to a heart problem, [2] [5] Hanson took a medical leave of absence. [2] [3] Upon informing his employer of his need for time off, Dayton said "You're done," and to take the leave. [2] [4] Dayton's Washington office later called Dayton and terminated him. [2] [4] Dayton claimed that Hanson was fired with cause [4] because of his "exceptionally poor performance," including sleeping on the job, which Hanson denied. [1]

Hanson sued under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) for discrimination based on a perceived disability. [3] [2] [4] The CAA applies 11 labor and employment laws to Congress [6] from which it had previously exempted itself. [7] Hanson said that his termination violated medical and disability laws, [1] including the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. [4] Hanson also sued for failure to pay overtime compensation. [2] [4]

Dayton's office filed a motion to have the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, [3] claiming immunity to the suit under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. [2] [3] [4] The Speech or Debate Clause, grounded in the separation of powers doctrine, [8] prohibits judicial inquiry into the "legislative acts" of members of Congress. [6] This shields lawmakers from lawsuits stemming from actions taken in the course of their official duties. [1] The definition of "legislative acts" was at issue, [6] particularly whether it includes the employment decisions of a Congressperson's office. [8]

In an unreported decision and without oral argument, [6] the district court denied Dayton's office's motion [2] [3] [6] and held that the Speech or Debate Clause does not bar Hanson's claims. [6] The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court's decision. [6] D.C. Circuit Judge David S. Tatel, in one of three concurring opinions, wrote that the Speech or Debate Clause has “some role to play” in employment cases and that what the Clause precludes should be decided case-by-case. [6]

Supreme Court

Dayton's office filed a notice of appeal, arguing that appeal was the proper procedure to ask the Supreme Court to review the case. [6] Alternatively, Dayton's office filed a jurisdictional statement and asked the court to accept the statement as a writ of certiorari. [6] Dayton's office also argued that because Dayton's term of office ended in January 2007, the case was moot. [6]

Under Jean Manning, the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment took a hardline stance against Hanson's lawsuit and sought to have it dismissed, arguing that the Speech and Debate Clause "provides absolute immunity" for a senator's personnel actions. [1] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell disagreed with this position and passed a resolution ordering the Senate Legal Counsel to file an amicus brief in support of Hanson. [1] Representatives Barney Frank and Christopher Shays also disagreed with the lawsuit, saying in a legal brief that Manning's arguments are "wrong and misunderstand both constitutional doctrine and the CAA." [1]

The following questions were at issue in the case:

  1. Does the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution bar federal court jurisdiction of suits under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 by congressional employees whose job duties are part of the due functioning of the legislative process?
  2. Was the Office of Senator Mark Dayton entitled to appeal the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directly to the Supreme Court?
  3. Was the case rendered moot by the expiration of Senator Dayton's term of office? [2] [3] [6]

The court only answered the second question at issue and did not reach the merits of the case. [3] Justice John Paul Stevens authored the opinion of the 8-0 court, which held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and declined to grant certiorari. [3] The justices held that because the CAA only allows direct appeals to the Supreme Court for rulings on the constitutional validity of the statute, and the lower courts' ruling did not qualify as such, appeal was not authorized. [3]

Subsequent history

In February 2009, Hanson and Dayton reached a confidential settlement, one month after Hanson filed to run for governor of Minnesota. [5] In October 2010, Minnesota Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton and Deputy Chairman Michael Brodkorb called on Dayton to answer questions about the settlement, including whether public money was involved. [5] The Dayton campaign released a statement: "The parties have reached a settlement, the terms of which are confidential. I will reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the full amount of the settlement to relieve taxpayers of any such burden. The terms of this agreement prohibit me from making any further statement regarding this action." [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal jurisdiction (United States)</span> Legal scope of the powers of the U.S. federal government

Federal jurisdiction refers to the legal scope of the government's powers in the United States of America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights, civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered as one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span> Common government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, a city within a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions. The federal government, sometimes simply referred to as Washington, is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Dayton</span> 40th Governor of Minnesota; former United States Senator from Minnesota

Mark Brandt Dayton is an American politician who served as the 40th governor of Minnesota from 2011 to 2019. He was a United States Senator for Minnesota from 2001 to 2007, and the Minnesota State Auditor from 1991 to 1995. He is a member of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL), which affiliates with the national Democratic Party.

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents.

The Palm Sunday Compromise, formally known as the Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, is an Act of Congress passed on March 21, 2005, to allow the case of Terri Schiavo to be moved into a federal court. The name "Palm Sunday Compromise" was coined by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, referring to it having been passed on Palm Sunday.

The Standing Rules of the Senate are the parliamentary procedures adopted by the United States Senate that govern its procedure. The Senate's power to establish rules derives from Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings ..."

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution. The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article I of the US Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, which may exclude a duly-elected member for only those reasons enumerated in that clause.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The Appointments Clause of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. Although the Senate must confirm certain principal officers, Congress may by law invest the appointment of "inferior" officers to the President alone, or the courts of law, or the heads of departments.

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on July 9, 1868, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Congress Office of Compliance</span>

The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) applied workplace protection laws to approximately 30,000 employees of the legislative branch nationwide and established the Office of Compliance to administer and ensure the integrity of the Act through its programs of dispute resolution, education, and enforcement. The OOC educates members of Congress, employing offices and employees, and the visiting public on their rights and responsibilities under workplace and accessibility laws. The OOC also advises Congress on needed changes and amendments to the CAA; and the OOC's General Counsel has independent investigatory and enforcement authority for certain violations of the CAA.

Since 2005, federal legislation has been introduced in the 109th Congress, 110th Congress, 111th Congress and the 112th Congress to amend Title 28 United States Code section 1259 to allow members of the United States Armed Forces to appeal court-martial convictions when the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denies a petition for grant of review or extraordinary relief. In the 112th Congress the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, H.R. 3133 was introduced in the House of Representatives and the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2011, S. 1664 was introduced in the Senate. Both bills are currently pending.

Speculation abounded over potential nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States by Ronald Reagan even before his presidency officially began, due to the advanced ages of several justices, and Reagan's own highlighting of Supreme Court nominations as a campaign issue. Reagan had promised "to appoint only those opposed to abortion and the 'judicial activism' of the Warren and Burger Courts". Conversely, some opposed to Reagan argued that he could "appoint as many as five Justices" and would "use the opportunity to stack the Court against women, minorities and social justice".

The constitutional law of the United States is the body of law governing the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution. The subject concerns the scope of power of the United States federal government compared to the individual states and the fundamental rights of individuals. The ultimate authority upon the interpretation of the Constitution and the constitutionality of statutes, state and federal, lies with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statements made by a Senator in newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in North Carolina</span>

Redistricting in North Carolina has been a controversial topic due to allegations and admissions of gerrymandering.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bresnahan, John (2007-04-02). "Supreme Court Case Pits Senate Lawyer Against Senate Lawyer". Politico. Archived from the original on 2020-10-10. Retrieved 2020-12-30.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Atzert, Breanne. "Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson". Legal Information Institute (Supreme Court Bulletin). Archived from the original on 2020-10-10. Retrieved 2020-12-30.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Office of Sen. Mark Dayton v. Hanson". Oyez. Retrieved 2020-12-30.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Jones 2007, p. 397.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Grow, Doug (2010-10-11). "Latest GOP attack goes after Mark Dayton over legal settlement, arguing his actions differ from words". Minneapolis Post. Archived from the original on 2011-06-09. Retrieved 2020-12-29.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Jones 2007, p. 398.
  7. ↑ Jones 2007, p. 400.
  8. 1 2 Jones 2007, p. 399.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.