Two conservative House Republican lawmakers filed suit last week, asking the Superior Court to define what constitutes an “emergency” under legislative rules and procedures of the General Assembly.

Rep. Cara Pavalock-D’Amato of Bristol and Rep. Anne Dauphinais of Killingly accused House Speaker Matt Ritter and Senate President Pro Tem Martin Looney of abusing their emergency powers last month to pass a bill that Republicans do not see as addressing any real emergency.

The measure, among other things, extended a moratorium on addressing racial imbalances in schools and set worker-friendly standards on warehouses — things drawn from bills that died last year when time ran out as Republicans used the tradition of unlimited debate to influence what passed.

Pavalock-D’Amato, who is a lawyer, said Thursday that the two Democratic leaders, who have the authority to certify any bill as emergency-certified and bypass normal procedures such as public hearings and committee reviews, were retaliating against the GOP minority.

“This e-cert bill was a punishment,” she said.

Courts generally defer to the legislature when it comes to its own procedures. The state constitution defines an emergency “as those matters certified in writing” by the House speaker and Senate president pro tem.

“I think it’s an absurdly partisan approach to using litigation to score partisan points,” said Looney, also a lawyer. “The whole purpose of an emergency-certified bill is for the two leaders to decide, in their discretion, based on all the considerations that are relevant, is this worthy of being considered an e-cert? That’s not a reviewable decision.”