From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dombrowski v. Eastland

U.S.
May 15, 1967
387 U.S. 82 (1967)

Summary

holding that for purposes of establishing immunity from suit, a subcommittee could ratify a subpoena previously issued "without prior authorization from the [s]ubcommittee"

Summary of this case from Trump v. Mazars U.S., LLP

Opinion

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

No. 118.

Argued February 20, 1967. Decided May 15, 1967.

Petitioners claim that respondents, Chairman of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee's chief counsel, tortiously entered into and participated in a conspiracy with Louisiana officials to seize petitioners' property and records in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Louisiana courts held the arrests and searches illegal. Here, the court below, while recognizing difficulty in concluding that there were no disputed issues of fact respecting petitioners' claim, upheld summary dismissal of the action on the ground of respondents' legislative immunity. Held: Since there is no evidence of the respondent Chairman's "involvement in any activity that could result in liability," the complaint as to him was properly dismissed. The doctrine of legislative immunity protects "legislators engaged `in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,' . . . not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves." However, the doctrine of legislative immunity is less absolute when applied to officers or employees of legislative bodies. There is a sufficient factual dispute with respect to the alleged participation in the conspiracy of the subcommittee's chief counsel to require that a trial be had. The legal consequences of such participation, if it occurred, cannot be determined prior to the factual refinement of trial. The judgment below is therefore reversed as to the subcommittee's chief counsel.

123 U.S.App.D.C. 190, 358 F.2d 821, affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Arthur Kinoy argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was William M. Kunstler.

Roger Robb argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Sanders and David L. Rose.


The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sustained the order granting summary judgment to the respondents who are, respectively, the Chairman and counsel of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate. Petitioners' claim is essentially that respondents tortiously entered into and participated in a conspiracy and concert of action with Louisiana officials to seize property and records of petitioners by unlawful means in violation of petitioners' Fourth Amendment rights. The circumstances of the searches and arrests involved are set forth in Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965), and in Judge Wisdom's dissenting opinion in the District Court in that case, 227 F. Supp. 556, 573 (D.C. E. D. La. 1964). Louisiana courts held the arrests and searches illegal because the warrants secured by the police had not been supported by a showing of probable cause. In a civil suit by these same petitioners against the Louisiana officials allegedly involved in the conspiracy, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, reversing a summary judgment in favor of third-party defendants, held that plaintiffs had raised a genuine issue of material fact whether the Chairman "and the other members of the [State] Committee were `acting in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,' which would entitle them to immunity." Pfister v. Arceneaux, 376 F.2d 821.

In the present case, the court below recognized "considerable difficulty" in reaching the conclusion that, on the basis of the affidavits of the parties, there were no disputed issues of fact with respect to petitioners' claim. It nevertheless upheld summary dismissal of the action on the ground that "the record before the District Court contained unchallenged facts of a nature and scope sufficient to give [respondents] an immunity against answerability in damages. . . ." In support of this conclusion the court addressed itself to only that part of petitioners' claims which related to the take-over of the records by respondents after the "raids." As to this, it held that the subject matter of the seized records was within the jurisdiction of the Senate Subcommittee and that the issuance of subpoenas to the Louisiana committee to obtain the records held by it was validated by subsequent Subcommittee ratification. On this basis, the court held that the acts for which petitioners seek relief were privileged, citing Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951).

The court did not specifically comment upon petitioners' contention that the record shows a material dispute of fact as to their claim that respondent Sourwine actively collaborated with counsel to the Louisiana committee in making the plans for the allegedly illegal "raids" pursuant to the claimed authority of the Louisiana committee and on its behalf, in which petitioners claim that their property and records were seized in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. In the absence of the factual refinement which can occur only as a result of trial, we need not and, indeed, could not express judgment as to the legal consequences of such collaboration, if it occurred.

There is controverted evidence in the record, such as the date appearing on certain documents which respondents' evidence disputes as a typographical error, which affords more than merely colorable substance to petitioners' assertions as to respondent Sourwine. We make no comment as to whether this evidence standing alone would be sufficient to support a verdict in petitioners' favor against respondent Sourwine, or would require a verdict in his favor. But we believe that, as against an employee of the committee, this showing is sufficient to entitle petitioners to go to trial. In respect of respondent Eastland, we agree with the lower courts that petitioners' complaint must be dismissed. The record does not contain evidence of his involvement in any activity that could result in liability. It is the purpose and office of the doctrine of legislative immunity, having its roots as it does in the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881), that legislators engaged "in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity," Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, 341 U.S., at 376, should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves. This Court has held, however, that this doctrine is less absolute, although applicable, when applied to officers or employees of a legislative body, rather than to legislators themselves. As the Court said in Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, the doctrine, in respect of a legislator, "deserves greater respect than where an official acting on behalf of the legislature is sued. . . ." ( 341 U.S., at 378.) Cf. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U.S. 647 (1963). In light of this principle, we are compelled to hold that there is a sufficient factual dispute with respect to respondent Sourwine to require reversal of the judgment below as to him.

As the Court pointed out in Tenney, supra (per Frankfurter, J.), in Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra, this Court "allowed a judgment against the Sergeant-at-Arms, but found that one could not be entered against the defendant members of the House." 341 U.S., at 378.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Court of Appeals as to respondent Eastland and reverse and remand to the District Court as to respondent Sourwine for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Dombrowski v. Eastland

U.S.
May 15, 1967
387 U.S. 82 (1967)

holding that for purposes of establishing immunity from suit, a subcommittee could ratify a subpoena previously issued "without prior authorization from the [s]ubcommittee"

Summary of this case from Trump v. Mazars U.S., LLP

holding that the committee counsel who was charged with conspiring with state officials to carry out an illegal seizure of records that the committee sought for its own proceedings was not entitled to Speech or Debate Clause immunity

Summary of this case from Massie v. Pelosi

holding that members of the legislature acting within the sphere of legitimate legislative duties are "protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves"

Summary of this case from Stallworth v. Bryant

holding that the Speech or Debate Clause protects legislators “from the burden of defending” certain suits

Summary of this case from Howard v. Office of the Chief Admin. Officer of U.S. House of Representatives

holding that legislative immunity did not extend to committee counsel who was charged with conspiring with state officials to carry out an illegal seizure of records

Summary of this case from Porteous v. Baron

holding the "controverted evidence in the record . . . affords more than merely colorable substance to petitioners' assertions" and "this showing is sufficient to entitle petitioners to go to trial" against a United States Senate subcommittee's counsel despite the assertion of immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause

Summary of this case from Taylor v. Duncan

upholding "summary dismissal of the action [against the Member] on the ground that `the record before the District Court contained unchallenged facts of a nature and scope sufficient to give [him] an immunity against answerability in damages`"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Renzi

affirming dismissal of civil complaint against senator based on his activities as chairman of a Senate subcommittee

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Jefferson

In Dombrowski, we reversed a judgment granting summary judgment to the counsel to the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate because there was "controverted evidence in the record... which affords more than merely colorable substance" to the petitioners' allegations.

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

subpoenaing records for committee hearing

Summary of this case from United States v. Brewster

In Dombrowski $500,000 in damages was sought against a Senator and the chief counsel of a Senate Subcommittee chaired by that Senator.

Summary of this case from Powell v. McCormack

In Dombrowski v. Eastland, for example, the Supreme Court stated that legislators "should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves."

Summary of this case from In re Vos

In Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85, 87 S.Ct. 1425, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967) (per curiam), the Court held in dismissing a civil suit that legislative immunity protected legislators engaged in legislative actions "not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves."

Summary of this case from Bagley v. Blagojevich

In Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85, 87 S.Ct. 1425, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967), for example, the Court stated that, when the Speech or Debate Clause applies, members of Congress "should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves."

Summary of this case from Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson

subpoenaing records for committee hearing

Summary of this case from United States v. Gillock

In Dombrowski v. Eastland, the Speech or Debate Clause protected Senator Eastland, who was also a subcommittee chairman, but not subcommittee counsel Sourwine.

Summary of this case from McSurely v. McClellan

In Dombrowski the Court held that the speech and debate clause did not cloak the chief counsel to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee with absolute immunity in an action alleging violations of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights.

Summary of this case from Doe v. McMillan

In Eastland, plaintiffs argued that " ‘once it is alleged that First Amendment rights may be infringed by congressional action the Judiciary may intervene to protect [First Amendment] rights.’ "

Summary of this case from Empower Texans, Inc. v. Geren

In Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85, 87 S.Ct. 1425, 1427, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967), the Court acknowledged that, to effectuate the purposes of the doctrine of legislative immunity, legislators "should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves."

Summary of this case from METRO PONY, LLC v. CITY OF METROPOLIS

In Dombrowski, however, the Court determined the subcommittee counsel, who was gathering information for a subcommittee hearing, was not immune.

Summary of this case from Taylor v. Duncan

subpoenaing records for committee hearing

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Renzi

In Dombrowski, plaintiff brought an action against the Chairman and counsel of a Senate subcommittee. Plaintiff claimed that, while in the process of gathering information for a hearing, the defendants conspired with Louisiana officials to seize plaintiff's property by unlawful means in violation of plaintiff's fourth amendment rights.

Summary of this case from Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

In Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 87 S.Ct. 1425, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967), the plaintiffs, the Louisiana Civil Rights Organization and its Executive Director, brought an action under §§ 1983 and 1985(3) against the Chairman of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, among others.

Summary of this case from Shellburne, Inc. v. New Castle County

noting that legislators "should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves"

Summary of this case from In re Perry

noting legislators "should be protected not only from the consequences of litigation's results but also from the burden of defending themselves"

Summary of this case from Arizona Independent Redist. Comm. v. Fields
Case details for

Dombrowski v. Eastland

Case Details

Full title:DOMBROWSKI ET AL. v . EASTLAND ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 15, 1967

Citations

387 U.S. 82 (1967)
87 S. Ct. 1425

Citing Cases

McSurely v. McClellan

See Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504-06, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 1823, 44 L.Ed.2d 324…

Doe v. McMillan

103 U.S., at 200. See also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S., at 504; cf. Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82…