Supreme Court REJECTS appeal from Marjorie Taylor Greene claiming her rights were violated when she
The Supreme Court on Tuesday swatted away an appeal from three House conservatives over fines they were slapped with for refusing to wear a mask during the Covid pandemic.
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ga., Thomas Massie, Ky., and Ralph Norman, S.C., filed a constitutional challenge to the fines they received for refusing to wear masks on Capitol Hill. But the high court let a lower court ruling stand, refusing to weigh in on the case.
The three right-wing lawmakers were fined $500 each in May 2021 for first-time offenses for flouting then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mask rules for the House. Subsequent offenses were $2,500 and the money was to be withdrawn from yearly pay.
Greene, pictured above in January 2021 before she started refusing to mask, was fined $100,000 for repeated offenses
Greene racked up as much as $100,000 in fines – well over half her congressional salary of $174,000 – according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
The lawmakers were protesting the House rules which had remained in place even after the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) said who are fully vaccinated do not need to wear masks in most public settings.
At the time Norman had been vaccinated, Massie declined the vaccine because he said he had antibodies from a previous Covid illness and Greene refused to reveal her vaccination status.
A federal judge in D.C. first tossed the trio’s case in 2022, arguing they did not have the basis to sue Pelosi for choices they made in their job as government officials. Last summer the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that ruling.
Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene , Ga., Thomas Massie, Ky., and Ralph Norman, S.C., filed a constitutional challenge to the fines they received for refusing to wear masks on Capitol Hill. But the high court let a lower court ruling stand, refusing to weigh in on the case
The lawmakers had argued their financial penalties violated the 27th Amendment, which bans salary adjustments for members of Congress from taking effect until after the next election.
‘While the Twenty-Seventh Amendment is commonly, but wrongly, thought of today as merely a limitation on Congress’ ability to vote itself a pay raise (as will be demonstrated below), that was merely one of its purposes,’ their attorneys wrote.
‘In addition to concerns about pay increases, the Founders were also greatly concerned that diminishing congressional pay could be used to pressure Members from exercising independent judgment, which could prevent qualified men of modest means from serving in the new national legislature.’
Since Pelosi is no longer speaker, the House counsel, representing Speaker Mike Johnson, urged the Supreme Court to let the lower court ruling stand due to the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.
That provides a shield against prosecution for what lawmakers do and say as part of their legislative work.
‘The rule was controversial, and all Members of the current House Leadership voted against it,’ Johnson’s attorneys wrote in court papers. ‘But this case is not about the wisdom of the rule or whether it was based on sound science. Rather, it is about whether Petitioners’ claims are subject to judicial review.’
ncG1vNJzZmhqZGy7psPSmqmorZ6Zwamx1qippZxemLyue8KroKadX6Szp7XCopilq12ntqi006xksJ2imnq3tc6lmK2dlGK2r3nAq6meq6RirrV5zJ6craGenHqrwcOgnGg%3D