|
Supreme Court hears Sen. Dayton case |
|
By Jeremy Jacobs
|
|
Posted: 04/24/07 08:09 PM [ET] |
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in the Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Brad Hanson, a case that could set a precedent over whether congressional employees can sue senators or congressmen under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.
Brad Hanson was fired from his post as Sen. Mark Dayton’s (D-Minn.) state office manager shortly after taking medical leave to undergo heart surgery. Hanson sued Dayton soon thereafter for discrimination of a perceived disability under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.
Senate Chief Counsel for Employment Jean Manning argued on behalf of Dayton, saying that Hanson was within Dayton’s legislative “sphere.” That means Dayton’s decisions are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s speech and debate clause, which states “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.”
Several justices questioned whether Hanson’s duties were essential to Dayton in the legislative process. Referring to a list of Hanson’s tasks in Minnesota, Justice Stephen Breyer asked, “What does he do? It seems a lot of the time he’s moving furniture.”
Manning argued that, as a part of his staff, Hanson represented a “second self” for Dayton, a point with which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg quickly took issue.
“How many second selves would there be?” she asked.
“Maybe [Hanson] was the 23rd self,” Justice Antonin Scalia quipped.
In her brief to the court, Manning argued that this case became moot when Dayton left office. Justices David Souter and Scalia took this line of argument one step further by asking whether “The Office of Senator Mark Dayton” ever existed, since the Senate had appropriated the funds for his operating budget. Scalia went so far as to call Dayton’s office a “fictional construct.”
Richard Salzman, arguing on behalf of Hanson, said that at the crux of this case was whether the speech and debate clause granted senators “absolute immunity” in their decisions. He argued that Dayton’s decision to fire Hanson had no legislative bearing.
“There was no legislative act involved in Mr. Hanson’s firing. It was just a firing,” Salzman said.
|
