Whether Congress may impose fines on individual members enforced through salary reduction for violations of House rules enacted without an intervening election, consistent with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment and the justiciability of such claims under Powell v. McCormack

No question identified. : App. No. In the Supreme Court of the United States HON. THOMAS MASSIE, HON. RALPH NORMAN, HON. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, individually and in their official capacity as Members, United States Congress Petitioners v. HON. NANCY PELOSI, WILLIAM J. WALKER, AND CATHERINE SZPINDOR, in their official capacities only Respondents PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI To the Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice, as Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Petitioners, Hon. Thomas Massie, Hon. Ralph Norman, and Hon. Marjorie Taylor Greene, in their individual and official capacities, respectfully request that the time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in this matter be extended for forty-six days, to, and including, November 21, 2023. The Court of Appeals issued its opinion on June 30, 2023. See App. A, infra. Absent an extension of time, the Petition would therefore be due on September 28, 2023. Petitioners are filing this Application at least ten days before that date. See S. Ct. R. 13.5. This Court would have jurisdiction over the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Background This case involves two primary issues: First, whether Congressional pay claims are justiciable, particularly since, as is relevant here, the Circuit Court and District Court held that such claims are not justiciable, as being barred by Speech or Debate Immunity. And, second, whether Congress can fine members, enforced through salary reduction, over rules that were passed without an intervening election, consistent with the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. This Court’s jurisprudence, namely Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), would appear to answer the first question in the affirmative, as that case involved pay claims, directed to the Sergeant at Arms, and this Court held such claims were justiciable and not barred by Speech or Debate Immunity. But in recent years, the District of Columbia Circuit has deviated from Powell, and advanced a Speech or Debate Immunity analysis and jurisprudence that results in no limitations whatsoever to the punishment power under Article I, Section 5. Gallows could be erected on the steps of the Capitol under that Court’s analysis as a means of punishing errant members of Congress, and the District of Columbia Circuit’s jurisprudence forecloses judicial review of those actions. Regarding the second issue, and given the recent vintage of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, the case presents an issue of first impression, as to the meaning and import of that Amendment. REASONS FOR GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME The time to file a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari should be extended for sixty days for these reasons: 1. Additional time is warranted to allow preparation of a Petition because seeking this Court’s review in any case is a serious decision, and the implications of this case are important, warranting careful preparation of the petition. 2. In addition to the foregoing, the press of other business for undersigned Counsel, to include multiple conflicts over existing matters, to include a trial scheduled in the Western District of Kentucky in October, and multiple other deadlines, necessitated this extension. 3. This case presents important issues warranting a carefully prepared Petition. At stake are serious issues regarding separation of powers, and the power and independence of individual members of Congress vis-a-vis House and Senate majorities. The issues in this case raise simple yet incredibly important questions, including, without limitation, (a) whether this Court, or any federal court, can ever review any member discipline cases, no matter how unconstitutional or severe, and whether Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) remains good law, or whether the District of Columbia Circuit has and can continue to overrule that case by simply refusing to apply it; (b) whether Congress can fin