Judge Voids Challenge of Senate Filibuster Rule

A federal judge in Washington this morning dismissed a lawsuit that alleged the U.S. Senate filibuster rule is unconstitutional.

The judge, Emmet Sullivan of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said "reaching the merits of this case would require an invasion" into internal Senate processes and "would thus express a lack of respect for the Senate as a coordinate branch of government."

"The court acknowledges at the outset that the Filibuster Rule is an important and controversial issue," Sullivan wrote. In recent years, the judge continued, "even the mere threat of a filibuster is powerful enough to completely forestall legislative action. However, this court finds itself powerless to address this issue for two independent reasons."

Sullivan said the plaintiffs, the government accountability group Common Cause, four members of the House of Representatives and three individuals, do not have legal standing to challenge the filibuster rule. The judge rejected the argument that vote nullification—the alleged injury among the House members—reaches the threshold for legal standing.

"Second, and no less important, the court is firmly convinced that to intrude into this area would offend the separation of powers on which the Constitution rests," Sullivan said. "Nowhere does the Constitution contain express requirements regarding the proper length of, or method for, the Senate to debate proposed legislation."

The internal proceedings of the legislative branch, Sullivan said, "are beyond the jurisdiction of this court."

Common Cause filed the suit in May to "end Senate gridlock," the group said in their announcement of the litigation.

“America can't wait any longer for Congress to tackle our nation's problems,” Common Cause president Bob Edgar said in a statement then. "We can't afford to let a minority of U.S. senators block action. It's wrong, and it's unconstitutional. It's time to restore majority rule in Washington and get the country moving again."

Atlanta attorney Emmet Bondurant argued for the plaintiffs at a hearing in the case this month in Washington. In court, Bondurant, a partner at Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, said the filibuster rule unfairly allows a single senator to block the will of the majority.

The plaintiffs in the case include undocumented residents who would have been granted a chance to obtain citizenship through the DREAM Act. The legislation died in the Senate amid a filibuster. "The majority was not allowed to even debate on it," Bondurant said at the hearing. "The majority is hamstrung by its own rules."

The Office of Senate Legal Counsel urged Sullivan to dismiss the suit on standing grounds and the judicial branch's lack of authority to change internal Senate rules. "That's not vote nullification if the Senate fails to make a vote," Senate lawyer Thomas Caballero said at the hearing on December 10.

Sullivan said in his ruling that the plaintiffs "have identified no constitutional restraint on the Senate's power to make rules regulating debate."

A Common Cause spokeswoman said the plaintiffs are reviewing the decision and considering appellate options.

"We still think it's a strong case," Mary Boyle said. "This was not a ruling on the merits of the constitutionality of the filibuster rule but whether we we have standing to sue."

Comments

[Jim]

That judge could have taken on the filibuster and declared it "undemocratic for an otherwise democratic institution." What does he do? He says it would invade the internal processes of the Senate. What processes? Gridlock is a process? Who appointed this shallow soul to the federal judiciary?
I know the Constitution allows each house of Congress to make its own rules, however a document that is so antiquated and behind its amendments, in the words of Justice Alito, is "Dead, Dead, Dead" and this ruling is trying prop up the corpse.

[Avon]

If "the constitutions' 'original intent' was majority rule," then the Senate would never have been created.
The House was intended to represent the people.
The Senate was intended to boost the power of smaller states, use longer terms of service to restrain the fickle People, and generally do things their own way.

I'm afraid Judge Sullivan is absolutely right on this one, just as the courts can't touch the Senate on so many other rules and practices it has - like one Senator being able to "hold" (blackball) certain stuff, or declaring itself to be in session when it actually isn't.

[Julia J Garmire]

It is obvious the constitutions' 'original intent' was majority rule. It was the standard of almost all deliberative bodies at that time (and since) and as such was so pervasive as a modus operendi that the founders never considered it necessary to even mention it in the constitution. It was assumed that majority would decide outcomes and therefore they only specified certain instances where a 2/3rd vote would be necessary. The Senate by adopting a 60 vote threshold for passing legislation effectively has taken the power of the majority and the people and given it to the minority losers. This should not be constitutional to change the fundamental mechanism of our legislative system, i.e. majority vote wins. That is not to say don't debate,in fact it has nothing to do with those issues. It is tantamount to saying the federal government can require 60% of the electoral college to win the election, otherwise the guy who gets fewer delegates gets to call all the shots. It is absurd...it is the elephant in the room where the constitution took form...they never dreamed they needed to clarify how you vote to pass a bill. It either won more votes or lost! This is insane, frankly.

[tmaster]

The purpose in that rule was because the senators used to represent the states not the people. That was changed when the 17th amendment was passed and the senators are now political and party driven just like the congress. However it was never meant to be that way and the 17th amendment needs to be revoked.