Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, Brad (05/21/2007)

Questions presented: (1) Was the office of Senator Mark Dayton entitled to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals directly to the U.S. Supreme Court? (2) Is the case rendered moot by the expiration of Senator Dayton's term of office?

BY JON WEINSTEIN, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Mark Dayton was a one-term, Minnesota senator who left office in 2007, but his brief tenure may have a lasting impact on jobs on Capitol Hill depending on how the Supreme Court rules on a case stemming from his dismissal of an aide.

Brad Hanson, wasn't looking to rewrite Congressional employment law when he sued over his dismissal. He just wanted his job back and lost pay.

Hanson worked on Dayton's 2000 campaign in Minnesota. After Dayton was elected, Hanson remained on staff to set up the senator's Minnesota offices. Later Hanson focused on "Health Care Help Line," a program he developed to help constituents resolve health insurance problems.

Hanson developed a heart problem while working for Dayton, and in July, 2002 told the senator he needed to leave work for three weeks to have surgery and recuperate.

At this time, according to Hanson's complaint, Dayton put him on medical leave. While on leave, he was informed by a Dayton staffer that he would not be retained following his surgery.

Hanson subsequently sued Dayton for terminating him in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also sued for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hanson sued Dayton in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Dayton filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Speech or Debate Clause barred the federal court from hearing the case. The district court denied the motion to dismiss and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the ruling. The matter is now on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will examine the jurisdictional issue. The Court also asked the parties to brief on whether Dayton was entitled to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and whether the case was rendered moot by the expiration of Senator Dayton's term in January of this year.

At the heart of the case is the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They 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 returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

The clause was intended to protect members of Congress against actions that might prevent them from fulfilling their constitutional duties as legislators.

Wayne Giampietro, a Chicago-area general practice attorney, said the Speech or Debate clause has been interpreted many ways over the years but the essential principle is relatively clear.

"The whole idea about the Speech or Debate clause is to let [members of Congress] do their jobs," he said.

A decision in this case will come down to how broadly the clause will be interpreted by the Court.

"There's a tension of what the Court has articulated as the purpose or point of putting the protection in the constitution on the one hand and what the language seems to say on the other," said Robert Bennett, a Northwestern University law professor has been following cases involving the Speech or Debate clause for a number of years.

There is conflict among the various circuit courts as to just how much protection the clause gives.

The D.C. Circuit held in Browning v. Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives that employment decisions are not subject to judicial action when "the [affected] employee's duties were directly related to the due functioning of the legislative process."

But the 10th Circuit staked out a different position in Bastien v. Office of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell finding that the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause extends only to "official" duties.

The reasoning in the Bastien decision was greatly affected by the Accountability Act which was passed in 1995 by the 104th Congress. The act says that congressional employees in a member's home office are not subject to the Speech or Debate clause.

And the reasoning in the D.C. circuit's decision to deny Dayton's motion for dismissal ultimately led to the rejection of the framework that was originally set in the Browning decision.

However, the specific circumstances surrounding Brad Hanson's dismissal might result in a ruling that leaves the law unsettled.

It may or may not be of interest to the Court that Hanson worked outside of Washington in Dayton's Minnesota offices. It's not clear whether his type of job would fall under the Speech or Debate Clause.

"Communication with constituents outside of the legislative chambers, a lot of people think that is core legislative business, but the Court has not necessarily agreed with that," Bennett said.

The lower courts rejected Dayton's request for the case to be dismissed. However, they did not hear the case on its merits; they only determined that the Speech or Debate Clause was insufficient ground for dismissal.

Yet, highlighting the murkiness of the case, the D.C. Circuit Court rendered four separate concurring opinions. The case was heard en banc, meaning all available and eligible judges were present to hear arguments.

The judges decided to re-evaluate their ruling in Browning and seemed to reduce the scope of the clause. But they could not agree on what the clause really should be protecting and the result was four decisions.

Each employment case brings its own set of unique circumstances, and for that reason, guidance on the greater issue of what the clause protects could be hard to come by.

On May 21, 2007, a unanimous Supreme Court found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the suit.

“The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction and certiorari is denied. We express no opinion on the merits, nor do we decide whether this action became moot upon the expiration of Senator Dayton’s term in office,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the Court.

The case returns to the district court, where the merits of Hanson’s claims will be addressed.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case as a judge on the D.C. Circuit, recused himself.