This case could have a big impact upon the legal accountability of members of Congress – including, perhaps, the issues surrounding last year’s search of William Jefferson’s office. The issue is simple – how far does the “speech and debate” clause of the Constitution extend in immunizing Senators and Representatives, and to what degree do statutes (and, one presumes, warrants) have upon Congressional offices.

To ensure robust debate, the U.S. Constitution protects members of Congress from lawsuits rising out of their legislative duties. But does that provide immunity from an aide's claims of discrimination?

The U.S. Supreme Court took up a Minnesota case Tuesday that could answer that question.

The case involves former Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton, who was sued by staffer Brad Hanson for discrimination after he was fired in 2002.

Dayton said he dismissed Hanson, who directed his Minnesota office, for poor performance; Hanson claimed it was because he had a heart condition and needed time off.

A lower court allowed the lawsuit to proceed, but the case has never been tried, pending higher court rulings on whether it should be.

The issue at hand is whether the staffing of one’s congressional office is an administrative act or a part of the legislative process. If the court holds that it is the latter, it seems to me that one could then infer that any activity or material in the office could be deemed a part of the “legislative process”, rendering those offices “safe zones” for stashing evidence of criminal conduct. On the other hand, a ruling for the plaintiff in this case would apply the laws of the land to members of both houses by upholding the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, which gave congressional employees the same legal rights as other American workers (holding for Dayton would effectively strike down this law as unconstitutional).

DaytonÂ’s team is now arguing that the case should be deemed moot because he was able to stall the matter until he left office. That argument should not fly, because for four years Brad Hanson may have suffered the consequences of illegal employment discrimination, and he is therefore entitled to his day in court.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.