National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc. v. Civil Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Page 503 523 525 Steel Corp 548 United States ex rel. Joseph v. Cannon 569 United States v. Diggs (criminal) – 584 United States v. Eilberg-. 608 United States v. Helstoski.... United States v. Maryland. 634 656 United States v. Murphy (and Thompson). 679 United States v. Myers 682 EXPLANATORY NOTE The following summaries represent an attempt to highlight the most important and relevant-principles of law involved in each case. They are not intended to be exhaustive of all issues raised or decided during the litigation. It is important to note that many of these cases are pending or are on appeal, and therefore that the holding of the court may be reversed or modified in the future. If a case has not been closed, its status is shown in brackets following the summary. In instances where the court has not yet rendered a decision, the most significant issues raised in the litigation have been indicated. Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 1148 (D. Md. 1980) (1) The surreptitious taping of a meeting between Congressional committee staff investigators and the individual under investigation, and the subsequent broadcast of portions of the taped meeting on national network news are not absolutely protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution because they are not an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes of the committee. (2) The taping and broadcast are also not protected by the doctrine of official immunity, although the Congressional defendants will be entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity if they can show that the taping and broadcast were properly authorized, and they will be protected if they prove that they acted reasonably and in good faith. (3) The "informing function" of Congress cannot be used a justification for protecting the publication of materials injurious to private individuals. [This case is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.] Bodenmiller v. Stanchfield (S.C. Suffolk County, N.Y.) Issue raised.-Are a Member of Congress and his staff aide absolutely immune from common law torts such as slander as long as they are acting within the scope of their authority? [This case is pending in the State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, N.Y.] Boland v. Blakey I [Not Reported] (D.D.C. 1979) The dismissal of a Congressional committee staff employee without providing a reason for the termination and without publicly disseminating any reason for her firing does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, even if her dismissal is not effectuated in accordance with the committee's own rules. [This case is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.] (3) Boland v. Blakey II (D.D.C.) Issues raised.—(1) Does the termination of an employee from her committee staff position without any statement of the reasons for her firing deprive her of a "liberty interest" protected by the Fifth Amendment? (2) Can the defendant committee members and staff director be sued in their individual capacities, and can a judgment be rendered against their personal assets? (3) Do the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel (based on Boland v. Blakely (I)) bar such a suit? [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] CBS, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 629 F. 2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1980) The section of the Communications Act which authorizes the revocation of a station license for failure to permit the purchase of reasonable amounts of time for use of a broadcasting station by a legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office on behalf of his or her candidacy creates an affirmative right of access for such candidates, and does not merely codify prior Federal Communications Commission policy under the public interest doctrine. [This case is on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.] Chadha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980) The legislative veto provision of section 244 (c) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows either house of Congress to override decisions of the Attorney General to grant suspension of deportation, usurps essential functions of the executive and judicial branches and is therefore unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine. [This case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.] Chase v. Kennedy [Not Reported] (9th Cir. 1979) Whatever action a Member of Congress decides to take with respect to a constituent's petition is absolutely within the Member's discretion. and is not a proper subject of judicial inquiry. Clancey v. Albert [Not Reported] (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 916 (1979) (1) Under The Speech or Debate Clause a Member of Congress cannot be sued for enforcing an allegedly unconstitutional House rule. (2) The doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits against the House of Representatives. (3) An action by a constituent, which challenges the constitutionality of a House rule that prohibits Members convicted of certain crimes from voting in the House of Representatives, becomes moot when the constituent's convicted Representative is not re-elected to Congress. Common Cause v. Bolger (formerly Bailar, formerly Klassen) [Not Reported] (D.D.C. 1980) (1) "Prudential considerations" will not bar an action challenging the administration of the Congressional franking statute on constitutional and statutory grounds where the case does not involve major, discretionary policy decisions but rather involves decisions by the Postmaster General and Secretary of the Treasury to implement |