Marjorie Taylor Greene's Attempt to Sue Nancy Pelosi Dismissed by Judge

A federal district judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi brought by Marjorie Taylor Greene and two other Republican members of the House of Representatives over fines for not wearing masks during a vote.

Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Ralph Norman of South Carolina joined Greene of Georgia in a lawsuit against Pelosi alleging that the policy requiring face masks violated their rights to free speech and that the $500 fines they'd received violated the 27th Amendment to the Constitution.

Judge Reggie B. Walton of the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit on Wednesday in a 47-page ruling that found the House mask policy had not violated their right to free speech.

Walton also concluded that the fines did not violate a provision in the 27th Amendment that forbids salary reductions for members of Congress from taking effect until after the next election.

Massie, Greene and Norman had attended a vote in the House without wearing masks in May 2021, violating a policy that had been put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. They were each fined $500.

They sued Pelosi, who is a Democrat, in July 2021. They also sued the sergeant-at-arms and chief administrative officer of the House.

The Republican lawmakers argued that they wanted to "protest against the double standard being enforced" and express "the well-founded beliefs" that mask-wearing was not based on scientific proof and that wearing masks was "not necessary for the vaccinated or naturally immune."

They also argued that imposing those fines on them was prohibited by the 27th Amendment. However, Judge Walton rejected their arguments on Wednesday.

Walton found that the lawmakers' compensation "is not varied by the deduction of disciplinary fines from the plaintiffs' paychecks" in a lengthy discussion of the meaning of "compensation" for members of Congress.

The judge wrote that "the deduction of fines from the plaintiffs' paychecks pursuant to House Resolution 38 does not violate the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, and, therefore, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment does not limit the House's authority to adopt the mask policy or House Resolution 38."

House Resolution 38 was introduced to enforce the mask requirement.

Walton similarly rejected the lawmakers' argument that the policy had violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment by punishing them for "contrary viewpoint-based symbolic speech."

He accepted the defendants' argument that the mask policy and House Resolution 38 were "unrelated to the suppression of expression."

Referring to the plaintiffs' submission that "recent scientific findings that the use of face coverings has no appreciable effect on slowing or halting the spread of COVID-19," Walton wrote that "the consensus within the scientific community is clear that masks - and, in particular, well-fitting, protective masks - are effective in slowing the spread of the COVID-19 virus."

Massie told Newsweek in a statement on Thursday: "The judge came to the tortured conclusion that collecting mask fines by direct reduction of members' salaries did not constitute reductions in salary, which is otherwise prohibited by the Constitution."

"We are glad to have a ruling that gets us one step closer to the Supreme Court, where we believe a plain reading of the Constitution will clearly show Speaker Pelosi has violated the Constitution," Massie said.

Newsweek has asked Pelosi, Greene and Norman for comment.

Update 03/10/22 10.10a.m. E.T.: This article was updated to include a statement from Representative Thomas Massie.