Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Dayton v. Hanson

Docket No.: 06-618
Certiorari Granted: 1/19/2007
Argued: April 24, 2007
Decided: May 21, 2007

Topics:

Americans with Disabilities Act, Speech or Debate Clause

PartyNames: Office of Senator Mark Dayton, Appellant v. Brad Hanson
Petitioner: Office of Senator Mark Dayton, Appellant
Respondent: Brad Hanson

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Office of Senator Mark Dayton, Appellant
v.
Brad Hanson
550 U.S. 511 (2007)
Question Presented:

Does the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 6, cl. 1, bar federal court jurisdiction of an action brought under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1438 (2000), by a congressional employee whose job duties are part of the due functioning of the legislative process?

Question:

1) Does the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution bar federal court jurisdiction of suits under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 by congressional employees whose job duties are part of the due functioning of the legislative process? 2) Was the Office of Senator Mark Dayton entitled to appeal the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directly to the Supreme Court? 3) Was the case rendered moot by the expiration of Senator Dayton's term of office?

Note:

FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS POSTPONED TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS. IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION PRESENTED BY THE STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION, COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1) WAS THE OFFICE OF SENATOR MARK DAYTON ENTITLED TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT DIRECTLY TO THIS COURT? 2) WAS THIS CASE RENDERED MOOT BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE TERM OF OFFICE OF SENATOR DAYTON? THE CHIEF JUSTICE [ROBERTS] TOOK NO PART.

Holding: appeal dismissed for want of j
Vote: 8-0
Recused: Chief Justice Robert
Opinion By:
Read DAYTON V. HANSON opinion (PDF)

Read opinion
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)