A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT TOD N. ROCKEF EL LE R,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J E FF B I N G A M A N , i n hi s offi ci al c a p a c i t ya s U. S . S e n a t o r ; T HE U. S. SENA TE; STEVE PEARCE, i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas U . S. Repr e s e nt a t i ve ; a nd TH E U . S. H O U SE O F RE PRE SEN TA TI V ES,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 2332 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 06 - 19 8 J B/ RL P)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M c CO NNELL , P O R F IL IO , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. I n t h e p r o s e c o mp l a i n tt h a th e fi l e d i n t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , T o d N. R ock efel l er as ser t ed clai m s agai nstt w o m em bers of t he U nit ed S t at es C on gress act i ng i n t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es , t he U ni t ed St at es H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves , and- 2-

th e U n ited S tate s S e n a te, a lleg in g th a t h e “ h a s s u ffe re d inju ryf ro m D e fe n d a n ts due t o t hei renac t m entof l aw s w hi ch have depr i ved hi m of hi s ci vi l and C o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts.” R ., D o c . 1 a t 2 . M r. R o c k e fe ller f u rth e r a lleg e d th a t: (1 ) “ D e fe n d a n ts w e re se rv e d w ith a ‘D e m a n d fo r th e In tro d u c tio n o f a B ill R es t or i ng t he R i ghtof D i r ectA ppeal t o the Supr eme C our tforC ons t i tut i onal V i ol at i ons , ’ ” i d. at3; and ( 2) “D efe ndant s had the author i tyt o pr eventand/ or r emedyt he i nj ur i es i nfl i ct ed upon Pl ai nt i ff, butr efus ed t o do s o, ” i d. a t 2 -3 . De fe n d a n t s fi l e d a mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s M r . Ro c k e fe l l e r ’ s c o mp l a i n tu n d e rF e d . R. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. T he di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed t he mot i on, concl udi ng t hat“D efe ndant s ar e pr ot ect ed bys over ei gn i m m uni ty , t he P lai n ti ff is w ith o u t st an d ing to b ri n g h is cl aim s, an d the P lai n ti ff ’s claim s are barr ed byt he Speec h and D ebat e C l aus e. ” R . , D oc. 15 at1. E xer ci s i ng j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m. I n i t s t hor ough and w el l - r eas oned or der , the di s tr i ctcourts um m ar i zed the back groun d o f t his case and M r. R ock efel l er’ s cl ai m s as fol l ow s:

Pl ai nt i ff Tod N . R ockefel l er , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, al l eges thathe i s a form erenvi r onm ent al s ci ent i s ti n the C ar l s bad A r ea O ffi ce of the U n ited S tate s D e p a rtm e n t o f E n e rg yw h o w a s te rm in a ted f ro m h is pos i t i on. See C om pl ai nt , C apt i on, Pr ay er , at1, 11, fi l ed M ar ch 15, 2 0 0 6 (D o c . 1 ). F o llo w in g h is te rm in a tio n , R o c k e fe ller c h a llen g e d h is dis m i ssal adm i nis t rat i velyand i n the cou rt s, bri ng i ng sui tagainst var i ous fede r al defe ndant s . See i d. ¶¶ 16- 23, at5- 6. I n thr ee pr i or la w s u its , fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt s ru le d a g a in s t R o c k e fe lle r. S e e id . T he C ou rtof A pp eal s affi rm ed eac h o f t ho se di stri ctcou rtdecis i on s, and the Supr eme C our tdeni ed ce r t i or ar i . See i d.- 3- I n thi s act i on, R ockefel l eras s er t s that28 U . S. C . § 1254, w hi ch el i m i nat ed di r ectappea l t o the Supr eme C our tfr om adver s e court s of appea l s deci s i ons , and 28 U . S. C . § 2284, w hi ch l i m i t ed gr ounds for c o n v e n in g a th re e -j u d g e d is tr ic t c o u rt p a n e l, a re u n c o n s titu tio n a l. See i d. ¶ ¶ 2 4 - 4 2 , a t6 - 1 0 . Ro c k e fe l l e rma i n t a i n s th a tth e s e l a ws v io late th e C o n stitu tio n ’s s e p a ra tio n -o f-p o w e rs d o c trin e a n d A rticle II I. See i d. R ockefel l erfur theral l eges thathe not i fi ed the D efe ndant s of the uncons t i tut i onal i tyof §§ 1254 and 2284, and that th e D e fe n d a n ts d id n o t ta k e a n ya c tio n to re m e d yth e tw o la w s . See i d. ¶¶ 8 -10, at3. R ock efel l er cont end s that the o perat i on of these la w s a n d th e D e fe n d a n ts ’ fa ilu re to a d d re s s th e m h a v e inju re d h im . See i d. ¶ 43, at10. A s s uch, R ockefel l erdemands thata thr ee-j udge panel deci de hi s s ui tforan i nj unct i on hal t i ng the oper at i on of § 1 2 5 4 . See i d. ¶¶ 42, 44, at10. R . , D oc. 15 at1- 2. “W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on underFed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) de novo. ” Tsos i e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 452 F. 3d 1161, 1163 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . H avi ng conduct ed the r equi r ed de novo r evi ew , w e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcourtthati tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on b ec au se “ D efen d an ts are p rotec ted b yso v ere ign im m u n ity , . . . an d the P lai n ti ff ’s c l a i m s a r e b a r r e d b yt h e S p e e c h a n d D e b a t e C l a u s e . ” R . , D o c . 1 5 a t1 . We t her efor e do notneed t o addr es s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s al t ernat i ve j ur i s di ct i onal ru lin g th a t M r. R o c k e fe lle r l a c k e d s ta n d in g to b ri n g h is c la im s . S e e Ru h rg a s AG v. Mar athon O i lC o. , 526 U . S. 574, 584 ( 1999) ( “W hi l e [ St eelC o. v. C i t iz ens f or a B et t erE nvi r onm ent , 523 U . S. 83 ( 1998) ] r eas oned thats ubj ect - m at t er j ur i s di ct i on nece s s ar i l ypr ece des a rul i ng on the mer i t s , the s ame pr i nci pl e does n o t d ic ta te a s e q u e n c in g o f ju ri s d ic tio n a l is s u e s .” ).- 4-

“ It is e lem e n tar yth a t th e U n ited S tate s, a s s o v e re ig n , is im m u n e f ro m su it sav e a s itco n sen ts t o b e su ed , an d the term s o f it s co n sen t t o b e su ed in an yco u rt defi ne thatcour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er t ai n the s ui t . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 445 U . S. 535, 538 ( 1980) ( quot at i on om i tt ed) . “The U ni t ed St at es cons ent s t o be su e d o n lyw h e n C o n g re ss u n e q u iv o c a llye x p re ss e s in sta tu to rytex t it s in ten tio n to w ai ve the U ni t ed St at es ’ s over ei gn i m m uni ty . ” United S tates v. R i chm an ( In re Ta lb o t) , 124 F. 3d 1201, 1206 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) . M or eover , “the exi s t ence of cons enti s a pr er equi s i t e for[s ubj ectm at t er ] j ur i s di ct i on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mitch e ll , 4 6 3 U .S . 2 0 6 , 2 1 2 (1 9 8 3 ). “I n gener al , fede r al agenc i es and off i cer s act i ng i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es ar e al s o s hi el ded bys over ei gn i m m uni ty . ” Mer i da D elgado v. G onz al es , 428 F. 3d 9 1 6 , 9 1 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). “F e d e ra l co u rts g e n e ra llyd e e m a su it fo r sp e c ific re lie f, e. g. , i nj unct i ve ordecl ar at or yr el i ef, agai ns ta named offi cerof the U ni t ed St at es t o be a s ui tagai ns tt he s over ei gn. ” W yom i ng v. Uni t ed Stat es , 279 F. 3d 12 14 , 12 25 (10t h C i r. 20 02 ). T hu s, i ti s w el l est abli shed thatthe U nit ed S t at es’ s over ei gn i m m uni t y“ext ends t o [cl ai m s for ] i nj unct i ve r el i ef. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mur dock Mach. and E ng’g C o. of Utah , 81 F. 3d 922, 929 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed, how ever , that“[t ] w o narr ow exce pt i ons t o the gener al baragai ns ts ui t s s eeki ng s peci fi c r el i ef f r om the U ni t ed St at es exi s t . ” W yom i ng , 279 F. 3d at1225. A s w e have expl ai ned:T h e S p e e c h o r D e b a te C lau se sta tes th a t “fo r a n yS p e e c h o r D e b a te in 1 ei t herH ous e, [Senat or s and R epr es ent at i ves ] s hal l notbe ques t i oned i n anyot her P la c e .” U .S . C o n s t. a rt . I, § 6 , c l. 1 .

- 5- A cour tm ayr egar d a governm entoffi cer ’ s conductas s o “i l l egal ” as t o perm i ta s ui tfors peci fi c r el i ef a gai ns tthe off i ceras an i ndi vi dual i f ( 1) t he conduc ti s notw i thi n the off i cer ’ s s t atut or ypow er s or , ( 2) tho se p o w ers, or the irex erc ise i n the p arti cu lar case , are u n c o n stitu tio n a l. Id. ( ci t i ng Lars on v. D om es t i c & For eign C om m er ce Corp. , 337 U . S. 682, 702 (1 9 4 9 )) . W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tthat“[s ] over ei gn i m m uni tyfor ecl os es R ockefel l er ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tt he H ous e of Repr es ent at i ves and Senat e as in stitu tio n s, a n d R e p re se n tativ e P e a rc e a n d S e n a to r B in g a m a n a s in d iv id u a ls act i ng i n t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es . ” R . , D oc. 15 at5 ( ci t i ng Keene rv. C ong. of the U. S. , 4 6 7 F .2 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 2 )). A s th e d istric t co u rt p o in ted o u t, “[b] eca us e an ‘ offi ci al capa ci t y ’ s ui ti s tr eat ed as a s ui tagai ns ta governm ent ent i t y , s ee K entuckyv. G r aham, 473 U . S. 159, 166 ( 1985) , R epr es ent at i ve Pear ce and Senat orB i ngaman, act i ng i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es , enj oythe enve l ope of th e C o n g re s s ’ s o v e re ig n im m u n ity, se e T ra v e le rs In s . C o . v . S C M C o rp ., 6 0 0 F . S u p p . 4 9 3 , 4 9 7 (D .D .C . 1 9 8 4 ).” R ., D o c . 1 5 a t 5 . W e al s o agr ee w i t h t he di s tr i ctcour tthatthe Speec h orD ebat e C l aus e of th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n , U .S . C o n st. a rt. I, § 6 , c l. 1 , “ p ro tec ts th e a c ts 1 w ith w h ich R o c k e fe ller ta k e s is su e in th is c a se – C o n g re ss ’ e n a c tm e n t o f c e rta in- 6-

l egi s l at i on and the dec i s i on of i ndi vi dual C ongr es s m en nott o t ake l egi s l at i ve a c tio n in re sp o n se to R o c k e fe ller’ s p ro m p ts.” R ., D o c . 1 5 a t 7 ; s ee als o D oe v. McMi l l an , 4 1 2 U .S . 3 0 6 , 3 1 1 , 3 1 2 -1 3 (1 9 7 3 ) (s tatin g th a t S p e e c h o r D e b a te C lau se “ p ro tec ts M e m b e rs [ o f C o n g re ss ] a g a in st p ro se c u tio n s th a t d ire c tly i m pi nge upon ort hr eat en the l egi s l at i ve pr oces s , ” and that“C ongr es s m en and t hei rai des ar e i m m une fr om l i abi l i tyforthei ract i ons w i thi n the l egi s l at i ve sphere, even t ho ug h thei r condu ct , i f perform ed in ot her than l egis l at i ve co ntext s, w ou l d in i t sel f be u nco nst i tuti on al ”) ( qu otat i on s and cit at i on s om i t t ed). A s a r es ul t , t he di s t r i ctcourtcorr ect l ydet erm i ned thati tdi d nothave s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on overt he cl ai m s as s ert ed aga i ns tSenat orB i ngaman and R epr es ent at i ve P e a rc e . See Fi elds v. O f f i ce of E ddi e Berni ce J

ohns on, E mpl oyi ng O

f f i ce, U. S. C ong. , 459 F. 3d 1, 13 ( D . C . C i r . 2006) ( “The Speech orD ebat e C l aus e oper at es a s a ju risd ictio n a l b a r w h e n th e a c tio n s u p o n w h ich a p lain tiff so u g h t to p re d ica te li ab il ityw ere legislat ive a cts. ”) (q u o tat ion o m itted). I n l i ghtof the above rul i ngs , w e r ej ectM r . R ockefel l er ’ s ar gum ent s t o the e ffe c t th a t: (1 ) “ th e U n ited S tate s h a s n o im m u n ityw h e n o n lyinju n c tiv e re lief is s ought , ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at7; and ( 2) “[t ] he Speec h orD ebat e C l aus e does not p rec lud e jud ici al rev iew o f e n ac ted leg isl ati o n to d eterm ine s aid leg isl ati o n ’s cons t i tut i onal i t y , ” i d. at3. Fi r s t , al though “the 1976 amendm ent s t o § 702 of the A d m inistrati v e P roc ed u re A ct, 5 U . S . C . § 7 0 2 , eli m inated the [ U n it ed S tat es’] s over ei gn i m m uni t ydefe ns e i n vi r tual l yal l act i ons fornon- m onet aryr el i ef- 7-

agai ns ta U . S. agenc yoroffi cer[ther eof] act i ng i n an off i ci al capa ci ty , ” C lark v. Li br ar y of C ong. , 75 0 F . 2d 89 , 10 2 (D . C . C i r. 19 84 ), “t he [U nit ed S t at es] C ongr es s i s notan ‘ agenc y ’ as defi ned underthe A dm i ni s tr at i ve Pr ocedur e A ct . ” Id. ( ci t i ng 5 U . S. C . § 701( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( excl udi ng C ongr es s fr om the def i ni t i on of a g e n c y )); see a lso Tru d ea u v. Fed era l Tra d e C o m m ’n , 4 5 6 F . 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 7 ( D. C. C i r . 2006) ( s t at i ng t hat§ 702 “r efe r [s ] t o a cl ai m agai ns tan ‘ agenc y ’ and henc e w aive s im m u n ityo n lyw h en the d efen d an t fall s w ith in tha t categ o ry ”). C ons equent l y , t he w ai verof s over ei gn i m m uni tycont ai ned i n § 702 does not a p p ly to th is c a s e . S e c o n d , t o t h e e x t e n tM r . Ro c k e fe l l e ri s a t t e mp t i n g t o i n v o k e th e “ [ t ] wo narr ow exce pt i ons t o t he gene r al baragai ns ts ui t s s eeki ng [i nj unct i ve] r el i ef f r om t he U ni t ed St at es , ” W

yom i ng , 279 F. 3d at1225, hi s att empt m us tfai l . I n the cont extof a s ui tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns ti ndi vi dual m ember s of C ongr es s , t he exce pt i ons forul t r a vi r es and uncons t i tut i onal conductw oul d i n effectnul l i fyt he leg isla tiv e im m u n ityp ro v id e d to m e m b e rs o f C o n g re ss b yth e S p e e c h o r D e b a te C la u s e . W e th u s c o n c lu d e th a t th e e x c e p tio n s a re n o t a v a ila b le h e re . F in a lly , o u r h o ld in g in th is c a se d o e s n o t m e a n th a t “[ t]h e S p e e c h o r D e b a te C lau se . . . p re c lu d e [ s] ju d icia l re v iew o f e n a c ted leg isla tio n to d e ter m in e sa id l egi s l at i on’ s cons t i tut i onal i t y . ” A pl t . O peni ng B r . at3. T o the contr ary , w e have det erm i ned onl yt hatM r . R ockefel l eri s for ecl os ed fr om obt ai ni ng j udi ci al r evi ew- 8-

of the s ubj ectl egi s l at i on bym eans of a l aw s ui tfi l ed di r ect l yagai ns tthe U ni t ed S ta te s C o n g re s s a n d in d iv id u a l m e m b e rs th e re o f in th e iro ffic ia l c a p a c itie s . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge