Document: 127 S. Ct. 2018 (2007) OFFICE OF SENATOR MARK DAYTON, Appellant, v. Brad HANSON. No. 06-618. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 24, 2007. Decided May 21, *2019 Thomas C. Goldstein, William F. Allen, Christopher M. Egleson, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, D.C., Jean Manning, Counsel Record, Toby R. Hyman, Claudia A. Kostel, Dawn Bennett-Ingold, Office Senate Chief for Employment, Appellant. Douglas B. Huron, Richard Salzman, Tammany Kramer, Heeler, Chertkof, Lerner, Simon DC, Appellee. *2020 Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion Court. Prior to January 3, 2007, Mark Dayton represented State Minnesota in States Senate. Appellee, Hanson, was employed Senator's Ft. Snelling office prior his discharge by Senator, which he alleges occurred on July 2002. Hanson brought this action damages against appellant, (Office), invoking District Court's jurisdiction under Congressional Accountability Act 1995 (Act), 109 Stat. as amended, 2 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. IV), alleging violations three other federal statutes.[1] The denied appellant's motion dismiss complaint based a claim immunity Speech or Debate Clause Constitution.[2] Appeals affirmed, Fields Eddie Bernice Johnson, Employing Office, Congress, 459 F.3d 1 (C.A.D.C. 2006), invoked our appellate 412 Act, 1412, we postponed consideration pending hearing case merits, 549 U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 75 USLW 3266 (2007). Because do not have 412, appeal. Treating jurisdictional statement petition writ certiorari, deny petition. Under direct review is available "from any interlocutory final judgment, decree, order court upon constitutionality provision" statute.[3] Neither denying nor judgment affirming that can fairly be characterized ruling "upon constitutionality" provision Act. minute does state grounds decision. App. Pet. Cert. 59a. Both parties agree cannot, therefore, constitutional holding.[4] Appeals' rejects argument forcing Senator defend allegations would necessarily *2021 contravene Clause, although it leaves open possibility may limit scope proceedings some respects. those holdings qualifies validity itself. argues holding amounts "as applied." According an applied" sort satisfies requirements 412. We find reading difficult reconcile with statutory scheme. Section 413 provides "[t]he authorization bring judicial [the Act] shall constitute waiver sovereign purpose, privileges Member House Representatives Clause] Constitution." 1413. This demonstrates Congress did intend interpreted permit suits otherwise prohibited Clause. Consequently, court's determination attaches despite best read its constitutionality. faithful, moreover, established practice interpreting statutes avoid difficulties.[5] See Clark Martinez, 543 371, 381-382, 125 716, 160 L. Ed. 2d 734 (2005). understood responding congressional concern if statute declared invalid there interest prompt adjudication To extend instances itself has been called into question, giving litigants preference over cases, accord rationale. also consistent cases "statutes authorizing appeals are strictly construed." Perry Assn. Local Educators' Assn., 460 37, 43, 103 948, 74 794 (1983); see Fornaris Ridge Tool Co., 400 41, 42, n. 1, 91 156, 27 174 (1970) (per curiam). Nor special circumstances justify exercise discretionary certiorari affirmance entered Having abandoned decision Browning Clerk, Representatives, 789 F.2d 923 (1986), D.C. Circuit no longer obvious conflict application challenging personnel decisions Members Congress. Compare (case below), Bastien Ben Nighthorse Campbell, 390 (C.A.10 2004). Accordingly, appeal dismissed want denied. express decide whether became moot expiration Dayton's term office. It so ordered. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took part case. NOTES [1] Appellee alleged Family Medical Leave 1993, 107 6, 29 2601 Americans Disabilities 1990, 104 337, 42 12101 Fair Labor Standards 1938, 52 1060, 201 IV). [2] "[F]or either House, Senators Representatives] questioned Place." Art. I, cl. 1. [3] reads full: "Expedited certain "(a) In general "An taken directly from chapter. "(b) Jurisdiction "The shall, previously ruled accept referred subsection (a) section, advance docket, expedite greatest extent possible." 1412. [4] Had qualified hear serious doubt. 28 1291 (granting courts district "except where had Court"). [5] make dead letter out 412's limitation rulings. remains provisions could challenged unrelated

Category: 8