Methodist Federation for Social Action v. Eastland
District Court, District of Columbia
1DissentWilkin, District Judge
I cannot concur in the majority opinion or the order dismissing the complaint because I do not believe that it is the law “that nothing authorizes anyone to prevent Congress from publishing any statement” — “whether the statement is correct or not, whether it is defamatory or not, and whether it is or is not made after a fair hearing.” The effect of the majority decision is to extend legislative privilege “for any Speech or Debate in either House” to complete immunity for anything published in accordance with a Concurrent Resolution of Congress. Such an interpretation of the law is contrary…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Tenney v. BrandhoveSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Kilbourn v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.