Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Brad Hanson
The court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act.
550 U.S. 511 · No. 06-618 · 2006 term · Roberts Court
Decided May 21, 2007 · argued Apr 24, 2007
Judicial power · No merits: dismissed or affirmed for want of jurisdiction
Majority opinion: John Stevens
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Petition denied or appeal dismissed. Office of Senator Mark Dayton lost.
What this ruling means
Dismissed: after hearing the case the Supreme Court declined to decide it, so the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit stands.
Office of Senator Mark Dayton was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550 U.S. 511 (2007) is a United States Supreme court case in which the court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act. This case was the first Speech or Debate Clause case the Supreme Court took up since 1979.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2006 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
John StevensWrote the majority opinion
Ruth GinsburgJoined the majority
David SouterJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Did not take part: John Roberts.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Office of Senator Mark DaytonU.S. senator
- Respondent
- Brad HansonEmployee, or job applicant
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 2 U.S.C. § 1412
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction; Federal common law
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- May 21, 2007DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: petition denied or appeal dismissed. Office of Senator Mark Dayton lost.
- Apr 24, 2007ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
6 other argued cases since 1946 on no merits: dismissed or affirmed for want of jurisdiction, newest first.
- Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., et al.551 U.S. 224Jun 18, 2007 · 551 U.S. 224Judicial power7–27–2 band
- United States v. Providence Journal Co. et al.485 U.S. 693May 2, 1988 · 485 U.S. 693Judicial power6–27–2 band
- O'Dell et al. v. Espinoza, As Personal Representative of the Estate of Espinoza and As Guardian, et al.456 U.S. 430May 4, 1982 · 456 U.S. 430Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Princeton University et al. v. Schmid455 U.S. 100Jan 13, 1982 · 455 U.S. 100Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Cardinale v. Louisiana394 U.S. 437Apr 1, 1969 · 394 U.S. 437Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Parker v. Ellis, General Manager, Texas Prison System362 U.S. 574May 16, 1960 · 362 U.S. 574Judicial power5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.