Court Opinion

ID: 9649004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:40:30.873505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:07.059374
License: Public Domain

*254
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

Chief Justice CAPPY.
I join the majority insofar as it determines that there is no right of access to the records at issue here, and that Appellee’s actions are not protected under the immunity of the Speech or Debate Clause. I dissent from the majority’s decision to reinstate those claims which were raised pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, since I agree with Mr. Justice Lamb that no state action is implicated by Appellee’s acts.1 Thus, I would affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court.
Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.

. Contrary to the majority, I would find that this issue of whether Appellee was acting under color of law is properly before the court, since Appellee addressed the issue in his brief in support of his preliminary objections, and the Commonwealth Court evaluated the issue on the merits.

. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.