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 the 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. Allen v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) Issue raised.-Do copies of correspondence or records of communications between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the House Select Committee on Assassinations constitute Congressional-and therefore nondisclosable-records under the Freedom of Information Act? [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. [Not Reported] (4th Cir. 1981) (1) The surreptitious taping of a meeting between Congressional committee staff investigators and an 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 since they are not an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes of the committee. (2) The "informing function" of Congress cannot be used as a justification for protecting the publication of materials injurious to private individuals. [This case is pending 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 liability for 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, 655 F.2d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1981) The dismissal of a Congressional committee staff employee without providing a reason for the termination and without publicly disseminating any reason for the firing does not violate the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the dismissal is not effectuated in accordance with the committee's own rules. Boland v. Blakey II [Not Reported] (D.D.C. 1981) The doctrine of res judicata (based on Boland v. Blakey I) bars a similar suit seeking a judgment against the identical defendant House Committee Members and staff director in their individual capacities and against their personal assets. Bonior v. Stockman (D.D.C.) Issues raised.-(1) May the Administration refuse to exempt certain Veterans' Administration health care personnel from the President's hiring freeze and refuse to release funds for their employment, despite the fact that Congress had specifically appropriated funds for their hiring, without violating the VA Staffing Act (38 U.S.C. § 5010(a)(4))? (2) Do Members of Congress have standing to bring a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, when/if legislative remedies are available to resolve the matters they seek to raise in court? [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] CBS, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 453 U.S.367(1981) 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 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. 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. [The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review this case.] 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 specific statutory language. (2) In such a suit, the Speech or Debate Clause does not preclude discovery of Congressional documents and testimony relating to the use of the franking privilege for political purposes. Remaining issue raised.-Does section 3210 of the 1973 Franking Act violate the limitations upon the taxing and spending power of Congress under Article I, Section 8, and contravene the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution by specifically authorizing the distribution of partisan political literature at the taxpayers' expense? [This case is pending before a three-judge court in U.S. District Court.] Consumer Energy Council of America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (D.C. Cir.) Issues raised.—(1) Does the legislative veto provision of 15 U.S.C. § 3342(c)(1), which allows either house of Congress to nullify proposed rules issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, violate the separation of powers doctrine by depriving the President of his constitutional right to veto legislative actions having the effect of law? (2) Does section 3342(c)(1) violate the constitutional principle of bicameralism by allowing one house of Congress to act on behalf of both houses? [This case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.] Crockett v. Reagan (D.D.C.) Issues raised.-(1) Do the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution (art. I, § 8, cl. 11) (which gives Congress the power to declare war), the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541, et seq.) (which restricts the sending of American troops overseas to engage in military activities without Congressional approval) and section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. § 2304) (which prohibits the providing of military aid to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights) bar the provision of U.S. military aid to El Salvador? (2) Does the case present a non-justiciable political question because it bears directly on the President's conduct of foreign relations and his role as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces? (3) Do Members of Congress have standing to bring a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, if legislative remedies are available to resolve the matters they seek to raise in court? [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] Food Service Dynamics v. Holtzman (E.D.N.Y.) Issue raised.-Is a Member of Congress immune from a defamation action as long as the actions complained of were committed within the scope of her Congressional office and in furtherance of her duties to investigate and speak out on matters of public interest and to examine and report on the implementation of legislation? [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] Fremont Energy Corporation v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer [Not Reported] (E.D. Cal. 1981) The Speech or Debate Clause does not bar testimony by a former Member of Congress at a deposition in a civil proceeding in which he is not a party regarding remarks made by the Member to a reporter after he relinquished his seat in Congress. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity v. Central Intelligence Agency, 636 F.2d 838 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (1) A document created by Congress and subsequently sent to a Federal agency will not be exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as a Congressional record if neither the circumstances surrounding the document's creation nor the conditions under which it was sent to the agency clearly reflect a Congressional intent to retain control over the document or to pre |