HARRISBURG -- A federal judge yesterday threw out a lawsuit over last year's legislative pay raises, saying the plaintiffs had no standing and that the case became moot when the General Assembly repealed the raises.

The plaintiffs had sought to prevent future use of political tactics that led to approval of the raises in the middle of the night July 7 without notice to the public.

An appeal is possible, said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause/Pennsylvania, lead plaintiff in the case.

The plaintiffs argued that their constitutional right to due process was violated because they had no opportunity to comment before passage and because the raises were negotiated in private conversations among legislators, Gov. Ed Rendell and Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy.

Those talks were part of a secretive scheme to bypass the legislative process, the plaintiffs said.

"We identified a very troublesome situation whereby, we have reason to believe, the Supreme Court and Legislature worked together in a way not permissible under the constitutional provision for separate branches of government," Mr. Kauffman said.

But U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane ruled that those discussions were proper and that the plaintiffs were represented in the process by the officials they elected.

"Tempting though it may be, the court has no authority to dictate to the Pennsylvania General Assembly how that body must conduct itself," Judge Kane wrote in her decision. "Long-standing constitutional principles absolutely forbid this court from dictating ... how to distribute power and responsibility for proposing and developing legislation."

Mr. Kauffman said he and other plaintiffs never asked her to go that far in her ruling. They merely wanted her to rule that the pay raise discussions were illegal. Then the lawmakers who haven't yet voluntarily returned raises they collected between July and November would be forced to do so, he said.

"Judge Kane didn't understand what we were asking," he said.

Judge Kane, in her ruling, characterized the suit as "an aggressive indictment of state government in Pennsylvania."

The political process, not the courtroom, is the proper venue for the dispute, she wrote.

That has borne itself out already in the defeat of 17 legislative incumbents in the May primary, which largely featured one-issue races centering on the raises. Voters also had their say in November when they ousted a Supreme Court justice for the first time in state history.

"This is a public policy issue, something that needs to be resolved by the voters and it seems they've been very successful in the elective part," said Paul H. Titus, who represented Chief Justice Cappy in the case and coordinated the defense team at trial three weeks ago.

"I would hope that Common Cause would think about what they're asking for. It's serious stakes to tell the Legislature and the governor's office [how to operate]," Mr. Titus said.

Yesterday's ruling has no impact on a separate pay-raise suit filed by activist Gene Stilp.

Mr. Stilp has argued that the Legislature violated a provision in the state constitution that prevents midterm raises.