|
|
Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973)
Doe v. McMillan No. 71-6356 Argued December 13, 1972 Decided May 29, 1973 412 U.S. 306
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioners, parents of District of Columbia (D.C.) school children, brought this action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for invasion of privacy that they claimed resulted from the dissemination of a congressional report on the D.C. school system that included identification of students in derogatory contexts. The named defendants included members of a House committee, Committee employees, a Committee investigator, and a consultant; the Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents; and officials and employees connected with the school system. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that the first two categories of defendants were immune by reason of the Speech or Debate Clause, and that the D.C. officials and the legislative employees were protected by the official immunity doctrine recognized in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564.
Held:
1. The congressional committee members, members of their staff, the consultant, and the investigator are absolutely immune under the Speech or Debate Clause insofar as they engaged in the legislative acts of compiling the report, referring it to the House, or voting for its publication. Pp. 311-313.
2. The Clause does not afford absolute immunity from private suit to persons who, with authorization from Congress, perform the function, which is not part of the legislative process, of publicly distributing materials that allegedly infringe upon the rights of individuals. The Court of Appeals, therefore, erred in holding that respondents who (except for the Committee members and personnel) were charged with such public distribution were protected by the Clause. Pp. 313-318.
3. The Public Printer and the Superintendent of Documents are protected by the doctrine of official immunity enunciated in Barr v. Matteo, supra, for publishing and distributing the report only to the extent that they served legitimate legislative functions in doing so, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding that their immunity extended beyond that limit. Pp. 318-324.
WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 325. BURGER, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 331. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BURGER, C.J., joined, post, p. 332. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN, J., joined, and in Part I of which STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 338.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973) in 412 U.S. 306 412 U.S. 307. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=558CFBU87AADKDL.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973), in 412 U.S. 306, page 412 U.S. 307. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=558CFBU87AADKDL.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306 (1973). cited in 1973, 412 U.S. 306, pp.412 U.S. 307. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=558CFBU87AADKDL.
|