616-617, 92 S.Ct. at 2622-2623. Walker's suit is based on Chairman Jones' action, pursuant to authority granted by the Subcommittee, discharging Walker from her job. If this action is within the legislative sphere, therefore, the case must be dismissed as to all defendants. [3] The Speech and Debate Clause is to be interpreted "broadly to effectuate its purposes." Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 501, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 1820, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975). Accordingly, courts have extended the protection of the clause beyond literal speech and debate and beyond actual lawmaking activity. Actions relating to the internal administration of Congress have been found to be protected legislative acts. For example, the seating of the press in the House and Senate galleries, Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. v. Periodical Correspondents Association, 515 F.2d 1341 (D.C.Cir. 1975), cert. den. 423 U.S. 1051, 96 S.Ct. 780, 46 L.Ed.2d 640 (1976), and the committee assignments by party caucuses, Vander Jagt. v. O'Neill, 524 F. Supp. 519 (D.D.C.1981) appeal pending, No. 81-1722 (D.C.Cir. argued March 19, 1982), have been found to be legislative action protected by the Speech and Debate Clause. In addition, this District Court has previously held that the administration of a congressional restaurant "while it may not attain to the magnitude of some congressional duties, is clearly an activity which is within the 'legislative sphere'." Parker v. Allen, et al., No. 74-1846, slip op. at 9 (D.D.C. June 6, 1975). [4] The cases cited indicate that the actions of Congress in making "internal arrangements for its own necessities" are [368] within the "legislative sphere." Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that Chairman Jones' discharge of a House Restaurant employee, pursuant to authority granted by a congressional subcommittee, is an action within the "legislative sphere." Under the Speech and Debate Clause of the United States Constitution, therefore, the Chairman, Members and staff of the Subcommittee may not be held liable for Walker's discharge. For these reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS V. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS Civil Action No. 82-3583 Washington, D.C., February 1, 1983 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on a motion to dismiss before the Honorable John Lewis Smith, Jr., United States District Judge, at 10:00 a.m. The DEPUTY CLERK. Civil Action No. 82-3583. The United States of America, et al. v. United States House of Representatives, et al. Mr. J. Paul McGrath and Mr. Stanley M. Brand. The COURT. We are here this morning on a motion to dismiss? Mr. BRAND. Yes, your honor. The COURT. You may proceed. Mr. BRAND. Your honor, may it please the Court, I am Stanley Brand, General Counsel to the Clerk of the House of Representatives. I am here representing that part of the sovereign comprised of the United States House of Representatives together with Speaker O'Neill, Chairman Howard Levitas and the elected officers of Congress. 21-618 0-83--50 |