Court Opinion

ID: 9427605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:19.439026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:08.361782
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Stewaet,
with whom Me. Justice Rehnquist joins,
dissenting.
New questions concerning a plaintiff’s complaint are more basic than whether it states a cause of action. The present case, however, involves a preliminary question that may be completely dispositive, for, as the Court recognizes, “the [Speech or Debate] Clause shields federal legislators with absolute immunity 'not only from the consequences of litigation’s results but also from the burden of defending themselves.’ Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U. S. 82, 85 (1967).” Ante, at 236 n. 11. See also Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U. S. 491, 503.
If, therefore, the respondent’s alleged conduct was within the immunity of the Speech or Debate Clause, that is the end of this case, regardless of the abstract existence of a cause of action or a damages remedy. Accordingly, it seems clear to me that the first question to be addressed in this litigation is the Speech or Debate Clause claim — a claim that is far from frivolous.
I would vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals with directions to decide the Speech or Debate Clause issue.*

This issue was fully briefed and argued before the en banc Court of Appeals. The court’s opinion gives no indication of why the court did not decide it.