Government

Masks Are 'Compelled Symbolic Speech,' Argues Marjorie Taylor Green In LOLsuit Against Pelosi

Well, it only costs $402 to file. So she'll probably get her money's worth.

By  
on

(Photo by Erin Scott-Pool/Getty Images)

“Plaintiffs, all of whom are members of Congress belonging to the minority party, engaged in the symbolic speech of not wearing a mask on the Congressional floor in defiance of the majority party’s compelled symbolic speech rule.”

Thus begins one of the more amazingly bonkers lawsuits filed in DC since the Kraken ignominiously beached itself on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and Ralph Norman are suing Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as the Sergeant at Arms and Chief Administrator of the House over the mask mandate. Specifically, they are very upset that they got fined for violating it in May and are demanding that a federal judge step in and do something about it. Because if there’s one thing that federal judges love, it’s wading into political questions.

The complaint begins by attempting to convert a public health measure into a speech regulation.

Wearing a mask conveys a particularized message: namely, that mandatory face coverings are medically and scientifically necessary to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, that these intrusions on bodily integrity are necessary and essential, that informed consent and civil liberties are to be suppressed in favor of government’s decisions regarding public health, and that individuals cannot be given the choice to make their own decisions regarding their facial attire and medical choices.

By this, ummm, logic, refusing to wear a mask is also speech.

Sponsored

Being forced to wear a mask, under these circumstances, involved both compelled statements of fact and opinion, all of which were embodied in the symbolic speech in question.

Which magically transforms the plaintiffs’ violations of the House mask mandate during the coronavirus pandemic into protests.

The reason for Plaintiffs proceeding to the floor without masks was to engage in symbolic protest speech. This protest speech was a protest against the double standard being enforced by Defendants, the well-founded beliefs shared by Plaintiffs that mask wearing is not scientifically based, that mask wearing is not necessary for the vaccinated or naturally immune, that mask wearing is merely political theater, that one’s bodily integrity should be free from government control, that individuals should have the liberty to choose what they wear on their face, and that individuals should be free to make their own medical decisions.

Let us not contemplate the logical end of this argument, lest we be plagued by nightmare visions of Team Dipshit airing their pink bits in the well of the House in “protest” of tyrannical dress code requirements. Pants: Teach the controversy!

The complaint goes on to make a variety of gonzo constitutional arguments, most of which appeared in a suit filed in June by Reps. Louie Gohmert and Andrew Clyde alleging that the metal detectors installed after the insurrection to stop members bringing guns onto the floor were illegal.

Sponsored

There’s the argument that fining members for breaking House rules violates the 27th Amendment because there can be “no law varying the compensation” of congress during the same session. No doubt the dozens of members who cowboyed up and paid their fines in the past decade will be thrilled to find that they’re getting a refund thanks to these constitutional scholars.

Of course, an administrative fine is not a law. But don’t worry, because the congressional brain trust also argues that their compensation can only be varied by statute, as per Article I, § 6, under which “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.” So, the fine fails because it both is and is not a law.

Similarly, plaintiffs argue that the fines are unconstitutional because Article I, § 5 only allows the House to discipline its members for “disorderly behavior.” And how could it possibly be “disorderly” to breathe COVID particles on your co-workers during a viral pandemic in violation of the chamber’s own rules and public health ordinances then in place in dozens of states across the country?

Also, if Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is allowed to wear white, then Marjorie Taylor Greene is allowed to go maskless. That is just the law.

Meanwhile, the Nitwit Caucus is at it again today after the House reimposed the mask mandate in response to updated CDC guidance. Rep. Boebert, who was previously fined, is reported to have thrown a mask in the face of a volunteer who attempted to hand her one one as she entered the floor. And the chamber was thrown into chaos after Rep. Chip Roy, who has also been fined for mask refusal, started screaming about his God given right to go maskless.

Putting the LOW in Lower House.

Massie v. Pelosi [Docket via Court Listener]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Topics

,