Roberts recused in granted congressional case
on Jan 20, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will not participate in the Supreme Court”s review of a potentially significant case on immunity of members of Congress to workplace lawsuits by members of their staffs. The Court granted review of that case on Friday (see the discussion of the grant as part of this post), and the order noted the Chief Justice’s recusal. The case is Dayton Office v. Hanson (06-618).
Roberts was a member of the D.C. Circuit when it voted to hear that case en banc, and participated in several en banc orders. However, he did not take part in the oral argument in the case on Nov. 30, 2005, nor in the Circuit Court’s decison on August 18, 2006. He had become a member of the Supreme Court near the end of September 2005.
Senate lawyers, representing the office of former Minnesota Democratic Sen. Mark Dayton, filed the appeal in the case. They filed it as a jurisdictional statement, arguing that federal law allowed a direct, mandatory appeal to the Supreme Court of Circuit Court decisions on the scope of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, applying federal workers’ rights laws to congressional employees. On the merits, the appeal contends that the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, protecting members of Congress from being questioned about their legislative activity, barred federal courts from hearing lawsuits under that Act, if the suing employee’s job duties were part of the legislative process — a claim rejected by the D.C. Circuit.
The Supreme Court on Friday did not accept jurisdiction of the case, postponing that issue until it holds a hearing — probably in April — on the case. In addition to the Speech or Debate Clause issue the appeal raised, the Court told lawyers to brief and argue whether the Dayton Office did have a right to file a direct appeal to the Supreme Court, and whether — as that Office now argues — the case has become moot because Sen. Dayton’s term has expired, and federal law does not provide for a prior lawsuit to proceed against a successor.
