Report of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations pursuant to Section 402(a)(2) of the Legislative reorganizatio...


Material Information

Report of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations pursuant to Section 402(a)(2) of the Legislative reorganization act of 1970 identifying court proceedings and actions of vital interest to the Congress cumulative to April 15, 1976
Physical Description:
v, 256 p. : ; 24 cm.
United States -- Congress. -- Joint Committee on Congressional Operations
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Constitutional law -- Cases -- United States   ( lcsh )
Legislative power -- United States   ( lcsh )
Legislators -- United States   ( lcsh )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references and index.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available in electronic format.
General Note:
At head of title: 94th Congress, 2d session. Committee print.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029717362
oclc - 04712248
System ID:

Full Text





i i~i i -,,,, y; / / i

A -tbi,01 X



euse of the Joint Committee on Congrssional Operations


... . . .. .....

Representative JACK BROOK, Texas, Cara Senator LEE METCALF, Montana ViceChira

JAMES G. O'HARA, Mchigan LWO HLS lrd

I k

&~~~ 1ffifm*

~A s~ OF > VIA I\4'F AS


____ 16
"- 28_i. ._ ?= _1

Ioduo -- ---------------------------35
1. Cnsttutoua vnnuiyo Members ifnCRepresentv
Aslad il Ic v. FeeaBiaeComs~n_ciation A- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- - 47

Nxo n v.Sfo ---------------4

... . . . . . . . .5 1
Vixo .v3
Nixonv.Vce --------------------------------586
PubliV. Siie v.S m n-----5-------- 2
J. Ofies 66lyead gnso heCnrs.
So i ls W o k r v...............--- ---........3
Unite State v._ es i-- - - -- - - 3
Pe f v. Untetae --- - - -- - - 35_P e of v a u l- -- - -- - - - - - -3

Asid~and Oil, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comi~o -------7 Nizon v. Administrator of Gera Serie ---------- 9
Kennedy v.Joe
CommonCause v. Baila ----------------- 0
Metcalf v. National Petrolem naaL----------- 2
Federal Power Co msinv. Mo! ------------ 23


"Table of Cae Reported~- 25


S~~c.i vit2l intres toe Joitom iteeshl(2 dntf n cutpocedn oratonwihir h

opiio of th Jon Comtte iso ianersoteCn
grss ort ihrHueo h oges sacntttoal established ~~~~~~~~ituino th FeeaGoe mntndcl
suhpoceigorato t h atnin ftaAHueo
the ongesswhih isspeifiall concern o tobot

....... ....

X I tK 1". 1

In accord with the statutory duty placed upon the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations by Section 402(a) (2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, the committee initiated a cumulative reporting practice in the 92d Congress to "identify any court proceeding or action which, in the opinion of the Joint Committee, is of vital interest to the Congress, or to either House of the Congress, as a constitutionally established institution of the Federal Government." The report, designated as Court Proceedings and Action8 of VitaZ Interest to the Congress, is intended to meet the further statutory requirement that the Joint Committee shall "call such proceeding or action to the attention of that House of the Congress which is specifically concerned or to both Houses of the Congress if both Houses are concerned."
This report-the fourth report of the 94th Congress--contains case briefs, accounts of 'the status of court proceedings and the full texts of decisions in active cases the Joint Committee identified as of vital interest to the Congress since its last report in December 1975.
The Joint Committee will publish cumulative reports of court proceedings and actions periodically throughout the 94th Congress. We welcome comments from all Members of Congress and others using these reports as an information source, and research document, as well as your suggestions of relevant pending court proceedings and action&--which do not appear in this report-for inclusion in the future reports of the Joint Committee.
JAcK BRoo-Ks, Chairm,,in.
LEF, METcALF, Vice Chairman.

......... .. .... .. ........





Civl Atio No 75469 (iftheCir.)
Brif.-laitif, Sirly avis, served as deputy administrative assstat o te saffof epesentative Otto E Passan from Febrhary1, 974thoug Juy 1, 1974, on wieh date her empleyment te 'ate Painiffthen filed- this complaint, naming Repreatndant, in the UJ. district Cout for th Western Dstrctof ousiana on Austh 7, 1974, alleging that she 'ha ben dscrmintorlvdismissed from defendant's congressional stffbeaus o hr sx '-vielation of her constitutional rights under
Plantif spplmenedher omplaint with w letter from the de-fedat? i- wic Mr Psumn indicated, in dismissing her, that he hadconudo."i wa esentia that the understddy to my AdminisRepresentativ Pa smnfled a motion to dismuss the carpphint, Antig: 1),-Th.)algd ndudb of the defendat is not violative of
-the Fith.Amenmen; () th6 lawr affords as private right of achier'toplaitif azd() teeotrianes of legislative and sovereign immumtyba atio aaistthe defendant. .
In a yri on ebray 24175' U.&S.District Judg -kTm tagg, of h6 S~bDitriti.Cort doj the Westernt.Districtr of Louisiana, dismised~lai-tiffM cipat on;ethe grounds -that it failed to state 'a lakaganst:MMPasman, upon which relief could be granted.
-Thec~ut, el&tha; te-leged -sex. discrimination by Mr. Passman as ot iotiv of -he i:h Amendment to the Constitution and that ,thelawimford no wiakeright, of action to plaintiff. The court furAher~~~ ~ hedhoee, that M,_Passawns defense of sovereign and .6ficil inruny Ws ot mll founde. 'I 18taoi A, apes. &DaVis,1ld on March 20, 1975, is pending befre he .,S Cort f ppeakefor the Fifth Circtuit. iisady v4 Mclllan

AC..............1991 (D .C i .
idd3 rgre' phrely refised in 'March
re so in

Wit! 4isbpop' 4dqe e. isied by the Senate
erman~non omte 3i'etiogatosi the (Jovenmeint Oea

of evra orahii cu th Sin'outkher n nee Editcation- Fqki v 8 rn Studett Otg ai at ion' Odiitte0-, the
1 f I l, '

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Students for a Democratic Society, all also plaintiffs in this action.
Plaintiffs filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on the date named in the subpoena for their appearance before the subcommittee seeking a declaration that compliance with

been taken in the civil action at the time toe McSurely were indicted for contemapt of Congres fforthir filure t nopl with the subpoenas. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an arujo, an, aippe mental complaint seeking only compensatory ancl pnlve'daiages. The plaintiffs alleged that the, defehanzts; absntox e'31lellahthree ihembeirs of the subcommittee statf,'and. the 'entuckyradamon health Attorney who initially seized from the p ~inf'. home, thedounents which included these 11&tesubpetnaed by anbcmtaittee eAtered into a conspiracy to deprive'theteof their cUnatitsitionabo-rights. They songht damages,'"for theunlaiwful seizure, inspectioniand appropmia tion of their personsk and business papers-and Socamelaid and other objects and articles, for the isitance rod sub poenasi based en illg6l obtained information and invalids on their fae, -for ethele humiliato and embarrassment, mental and emotional pain, loss t otfin eds~et disruption of *persoal,,,hp iracy and safety etnsed rth6raby, IIli 61oa. tion and derogation of theib nightasxder he07irst,.Fouth Fift a Fourteenth, Aaneddments to the U.8. Censtitutiew alid the lk-* ofhe United States." [Plaintiffs' Amended and Seppledanntal'C4mplat, atil13-14.] iownrd 0 r le
aThe MeSurelys twere donvwicted ofb-bcotenmpt Odi ~bre and sn taboedb in June 0195 i theatcrimial setkx. T- he condietitalsTwei* appealed to the court of appeals, whieredral. ar nts kierded on January 21, 1972.,.eWe h tt n otwm e
Thbe decision '6f the cdurt 6f Appeals, rewedsduh easthmpt of Congress convictions' of the: Me~nrleys, wagofiled led Deemnber 20,
17;The majority of the court thbh~the Pdsition thattthe ag~lasioniiy rule applied to probeedingsi beforesqongressiedMl edimitteen asell as to cridinal proseeutions,and, therefore,; theoutheld-that the-subee hiittee'ssubpoeiks wrest invalid asithe flit of dn, united did seareh and sizure. I[United Statesev. M ttrbly, 473 I12d 1178 "(Dla. Of 1972) ; the text of -the decision was printed in the Report of the Joint Committee on Congressional Operations, Identifying Oowrt Proceed ing and Actions of Vihzl Interest tolhe Congess. Finkl-Report for the 92d Congress, December 1972, at 645.1,
The case was remanded to the U.S. District -Court for the District of Columbia with instructions to enter judgmbhis ed soquital ii the matter of the contempt convictions,,III. I ,
The decision of the Solicitor Genera-, was, not t pei[o0 li pfeme Court for a writ of certiotrari.
In he civil proceedings, -Chairmain McClellan And ihrie stibcorn mittee s'taff' members ~file a. rootfo to disniuss. orin th 0 ilta tivlje "for summr jdonent in thedsrccor dn Octbbd6 11 71.


,sphere..of le&14tive activity.;,(2) The claimant fails to state a
pmypon .., Mch re, lief c granted, aiust defendants
7110 re, a. U u'ted States Senator or employees of the Sen ate of th e, Vnifed States at all times. material to this cause.
"Plaintiffs are barred','by, collateral estoppel from. re
litigating issues previously '8ettled by the judgment of thi; court in United States v.. Alan MeSurely and Margaret MeBupely,'Cr'iminal: Nos., 1376 '69, 1377-69. [Defendants'
o Dismiss or in the Alternative -for' Summary Judg! 6)n tc
Them:otllon to dismiss was denied on June 12,1973 and after the motion I for reconsideration was rej ected, the Federal defendants filed notice appeal'.
14 a 2-to-1 decision on,6et'ober 28,1975, the U.S. Court of Appeals for &:T)istriot, of -Columbia reversedthe district court'sholding and reman4d thecase for I further action consistent with its holding.
'Tli Deals-court held, the defendants were
e 4p.. that as a matter of law
entiiW q summary judgment on' all c()Unts of the complaint relating to the'' inspection by the connnittee investigator of the seized material, the tr4'n's-iw: irtfition. (if such m aterial to Washington by the investigator, the uitiliz-a''tion6f the information by the investigator as the basis for congregsi wd, siibp6enas., and the issuance of Contempt of Congress citatiq t saLAOO the plaintiffs.
Thd appeals court left f6r the district court on remand the, determinatio-n 'Whether the defendants actively collaborated in the original raid 6: n'. the MoSurelys"home and, if so, whether there was sufficient evidence pf such collaboration to merit a trial on that issuee
In a&Aition, the -appeals court remanded to the lower court the question whether: r the, defendants distributed* copies of documents to indiViduals: o-r' ag': en cie's outside Congress-and if made, whether such distiibuii6i was actio3aable.
T& c'oliftrt'dinphasized that at no point in.the Proceedings on remand nay141rybe' made:1into those aefivities, of the defendants which it had'ifidi t6d areprotecied by the Speech or Debate'Clause:
Js a. general rule, the process of gathering and utilizing
lnfwmation, withiwCongress is protected activity within the %ejWativa sphere.71 Constitutional: immunity may be withWelver, if* no r9tional legislative purpose can be
fot ndl for a:committeels directing its investigation
4iw, O individual, organization, or institution.
Also, ithe Sp.wh or lbebateClause will not shield an employee or.Mexnberlof., Congress from prosecution or-suit for a crime ,Qr Fotvth Amendment violation arising from his efforts to .4bt'ain. ipfarmation. Fin'&'Jly4 Oxe dissemination -of info ation 1014W4 f 'C. ongress isuot. a protected legislative act and en.jpy n(? special constitutional imia-unity.
The question whether the Subcommittee on Investi ons
4th.e:"tant'case waseingoged, in investigative. activity coil,"on which legisWjon eool4be had" ia readily Wd; t all timew'pertiaent tothe lease, the Subcopimiteq thomized by Sepate Rqwlution: tp make, a full and
I C 0 M Tppeb study and mivestigatfon of violent disturbances of

commission of c rinmes in" :,onnae cVth[ir
-1isnedisa Ganlngstandig(AOuses, tli" extent an fcI Of Sach owc nee int kiid'*crunes[ Jind nieisititsAC4 fr their imdia1to. and long raiigspreVtiin.

Ceanl, there:4s .no question, in)rvioly of a ebreadth.o Congress' investigatory power and of Ats iadaete bcomniittee, that the Subcormmittee'hid jurisdiction tom Brick to Pikeville to. examine .the materials in Rtliffls possession. I'
Moreover, Brick clearly ejoyed~the prerogati 9- -so long ais he did not obtain the documents by unlawful 'ns :t bring tor.Washington copies of all 'natetials which mi8 prove useful to the Subcothmittee's investigation. The primnary dispute in this case, focused upon by. our colle'agnue's partial dissent, arises from Brick's testimony at the McSurely contempt trial 'that not all of the 'batch' of 34 documett he received from: Ratliff-in the selection 'of which Brick had, played no part-were necessary to the i 'nvestigation. Nevertheless, rather than attempt -a docum'ient-by-documnt '84termination of which items might or *might not be: relevdat; he carried all the papers to Washington for thd .Subbomddiite A. inspection. The guedich, posed here is, Otu hr it woas. i eumibent on Brick either to sepa)htte dut thod Papers toc Ievtere clearly 9ot required fdr*,the' investigation or forft Wi8 Proteotion (antd, possibly, the prothetioA of the other defidf44 e) under the Speeck or De bate Cloitme.
We d6 'not believe a Congressional committesvesvtightory jurisdiction can turn on this kind of detailed, assessment 6f the relevancy of particular items. garnered bmg doq or Memlers of Congress pursuanit to o. facia yvalis .ni The Supremen Court in a sittilar situation in Doe v. O2a found' "nod autthority to ovei-see' the .judgineort *of the'Nstmittee **Por' to -impose* liability on its members i1 we disagree with Itheir -legislative' judgmenLt" It would *appear that the jurisdictional requitements of the Speech of IM bto 'Clause are met here shi 's Doe if rational legisistive 1 itpose is present for i g i atnA, particular*persh, 9 giabsationersnstitttiony Thr n8r 9 no Irequifremantthatvyr pice of: inthi atior gathered' in: such, tin investigation b justified befoe the etdlet y. Certainly, Tenn 7.AB-htde 'and the B vin dye Ben68' g 6 wi TItd PA
submit that ib is piolelyth kn&ofor snianglement isi 11gi60 thve audgmnent, that t h6 ~thtn court ini 'DW r t ly soughitto avoid. In via# fitb iktt id idaly ftt IMikPs e of the knotibly t ed tho in agdpo h
-Speeek or IDebats MatedI, at' the ln' bs&p


iriatio of the
In. r ,Vp 11
4,9ejoi plaintiffs' allegatioa. that. the.. exam
illegtdl;y. eized paaterials in the.Commonwealth Attorney's posses sioiri by t6 s Win"dee's hivestigator, was itself an independent violation 4f thp k Lrelys' Fourth Amendment rights and, therefore, not proteicted'by S'peeeh or ]Debate i'mimunity-the court held that. United States Y. Calandra,, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) was controlling in the instant case. The b;p 'aN- court said:
]A- s;,um, itw'ould appear under Calandra., that a Congres..Signal committee should enjoy. at least the, same prerogative as a grand jury to use material which has been unlawfully seized. As with the grand jury, the Congressional committee may not be privileged to utilize such information if its agents have actively participated in the original unlawful seizure. Outside of that circumstance, however, a committee commits no new Fourth Amendment wrong by examining
and copying documents originally unlawfully secured.
Judge Leventhal, in his partial dissent, however, argues
that Brick's examination of the MeSurely materials after the original unlawful seizure was itself violative of the Fourth Amendment because he knew the materials had been unlawfully seized and because, a, three-judge federal court had ordered Ratliff to hold the materials in safekeeping.
Certainly, after Calandra, the fact that Brick knew the documents had come wrongfnlly into Ratliff's possession could not render his own examination unlawful. That a cyrand jury knows its information springs from an illegal search does not prevent it from examining the fruits of that search, and basing questions thereon, in the pursuit of a lawful investigation. A Congressional committee, as we detailed
above, is entitled to the same prerogative.
That Ratliff had been ordered to hold the materials in
safekeeping also does not render Brick's examination violative of the Fourth Amendment. The three-judge court's order was simply a function of its finding that the materials had been unlawfully seized. There was no implication in the order that investigatory bodies which would otherwise be entitled to utilize unlawfully seized materials were barred from such utilization by the court's formal ruling. This does not mean Brick could have broken into Ratliff's office to obtain access to the materials. Such an entry would have been in violation of Ratlif 's Fourth Amendment rights. Ratliff himself, however, invited the Subcommittee to come to Pikeville to examine the materials. He alerted the Subcommittee to the fact that the product of his search of the MeSurelys'
home might be relevant to its investigation.
Calandra makes clear that a grand jury or, -we submit, a
Con 0
gressional committee, has the right in its investigatory
capacity to use the product of a past unlawful search and seiz re. The Supreme Court emphasized that such use works no new Fourth Amendment wrong on the owners of the seiz6d pr perty. Since effective utilization of materials requires their examination, it is difficult to conceive, after Ca-


ImOra, how the inspection, by onjB aiithprized *g'o* #4irmment agent of documents- in the custddy of anothet Can 1)6 chAractelvized as an unconstitutional selirch.- The, eot ittibiiil violation is co' mpleted with the origmial'taking. [Slip -Opinion
at 2-05-256.],
Status.-The appeals court decision was vacated and, a petition for, rehearing en bane was granted on December 10 1975
A copy of the appellate decision w" printed in: & "Deeisio s." section, Cmtrt Proceedings and Actions of' Vital Interest to the *C ngTS8, December 31,1975.

!I 1' j., I fN

Brif.Thi sitfied n bomber 2A41l, by Ahand 1i, seeks defaraor-aninjnciverelefpurspunt tpChapter'7 of te Administrtie Poceure ct 5 US.C, 701 et seq.). Onor bot Aril. 51 975 te Federal Trade Commission served uponAshandOil~n oder("Secial Report") which required Ashlan Oi tosubit nfomatonsome of which, "was highly sensitive cometiive daa dtaiing-th cmpany's reserve estimates for all of itsnatralgaslesesandconrats nationwide." [Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FedralTrae Cmmisio, CvilAction No. 75-1956 (D.D.C.) ; Slip Opinion t 3 ths rpor at74-5, infra,.] Ashland's submission was Rccopaned'b a ette frm oe of its vice presidents stating that the.coma~i's.infrmaionon as reserves was confidential and of a proriear naure te dsclsue of which would result in competitiv, njuy. Th ltte: urter sated that such information was submitedt 'otheComisio wih he express reservation that Ashland coud~caimitsrigt t hae tenaterials therein provided "accorded confdenialtretmen an beproected f rom disclosure." Folowi. -a-rejcton y te ederal Trade Commission of his reques, a a embr ofConres, t make available to him data gathered by te Comi'sionPerainig t lease extensions on Federal lands, Congessan ohn Mss enta second request as Chairman of the Subcmmitee n Oersiht ndEnvestigations of the House Committee n Inersate nd orein Cmmerce. Unlike its first response, in whih i deied'fle Cnglo~sia's request for information which it conideed 6 b .eemp frm andatory disclosure under the Freedom f~itorniatio Act(5 .C., gg552 (b) (4) and (b) (9)), the Comisson reaod he ecod',request as: a "formal 'Coniressional


lease extensions on Federal lands, including Ashland Oil, .Inc. and including all correspondence between the Federal Trade Commission and Ashland Oil, Inc. relating. in any manner to agreements or proposed agreements tohold such records confidential or to give advance notice of the release thereof. [See H.R. JZep.. 1 9. 94:456,,94th: Cong., st Sess.,
at 3-4 (1975)].
By letter of December 3, 475, Cbairrux, M04s, jjif9Med3f&UwiS. Engoinan (Chairman of the, FTC) th t the subcommittee would take 110 action to enforce compliance with Vstibpoena', until the, o6urt had considered the issues arising in the instant case.
Followin a hearing in open court: Coll re 88man Moss"m6tion to intervene piu-suant to.Rule 24 (a) of the FeTeral. Rules of Civil Prom'dure, was granted on January 16, 1976. This. ease cam-e before Judge Howard F. 'Corcoran, of thd tpited 14ates District Court'for the District of Coluixibia on Ashland's'motion for preliminary and permanent injunction and Defendants Moss, and the Federal Trade Commission's inotions for summa-ry judgment or, alternatively, to dismiss.
In a ineinorandum and order filed February 2, 19761 district
court denied the plaintiff's motion, gr anted defen'dAnte moti6h -to dismiss, and dissolved the temporary restrainirig otder issued'November 24,1975.
Aftei addressing itself to the plaintiff* ontention that SerAlion 6(b) of the Federal; Trairle Commissio n Act prohibits the disclosure. of trade secrets by flie Comoiission to any thi-rd. party-including the COngress-and having determined that soin,6 of the data; in issuie does indeed co" ii.stitu.-te a "ti-ftde' secret" within'the, purvie-4 of Si ction 16 (f of the FTC Act, and further, declaring that eong"ressibnal Investiga-, tory power is not unlimited and the parameters of the inqUiry May be no: broader than the "legitimate sphere, of lleg'isla'tive lacti*ity,11' the court concluded
In summary, we find that the'partienla r investigation
in issile 'is directly felated t6 and in fui0e ra, ce 4 1"4, legitimaie, task of Oongress." Watki'ns Y. United fttee,. supra,, 354 U.S., at.187. The Subcommittee, in issuitik the subp oena,
was acting under the cleAr man, dat of the full
the reseAtativ'es 6 investigate be
sphere of legitimate ieg slativ&..activity,' 'P nd:t4p t V .9f
uihority is, i'se f suM en
811, ci t to'Aow"' that the'invegtig ation
upon which the Subcommittee 1-i as eml arkeA Wd ia
Subject on which 'Je. siaiion, eo*_be had$*
Un ted State.8 Serv'c eme)i's Fund .1 W
Fro 506.
a f I I 2 8U 4
MeGran V. haqlgherty, 2.73 V. at 1., 0,0 t
rt v fro oard, 367 U.S. i' ip pi4ion,
a y, '. 0on ( Si
18; this report at 87-88, ivfra,; foptn9te (q#zn#
With. reapect to Plaintiffs Ppm!cific':n-kAi6'n, for'. pr liminarylttnd pennanent inj u notion, the M'Irt said:
Tnjunctiywrellief is sppi opriate chil "tol t
orpresently thitateiied, Injuries" iin will
merely'leaxed '-Iiah)s too eae at 96tnbi!

ind~~~aite-~c tie n lettrCn t v. ealtrscult r
$PtU- 0 (930..,4,eealfom general isemina-v

jjwtoD~ wil no be w~eeither pubiscodisseination are iosectve i~d"w~chnytitors., Moeverthe court 1262 8.14 *.1912. Th daue regaraid f mte ht suc yw nene tat her. i a ~cea Eaand, 442' F.2d 751r e?-YCo.V. ~erheyChoolae, oip, 1695 F.'Sitpp. 4588 613D N.1. 167 -so lsoAss. f.Pfs aboutl th nersubcommi'hNJ.~~~~ pr0 hrqurdsoigo e ctradle series r
is nt e~'Aniate~siml b ture of ths secralets"g (Polain

the$.prme out ourtstaed

d~~~~~~~ A nscniuto oe sthl and' compnceude
mu n it upnthe, sme rpparaobte Cojurt. tha iso

Through its staff counsel, the 8ubcbfnmitteehAs;ed
that there is,"no indioationll thit.-the StbcorAnjjttbe r(4v otfl& release information' originating fr6m AshiaaA Alfidavit' of Michael R. Lemov 1 t&venor's Moti(Ai toDisini Audi.
Chairman Moss, through counsel, Ims rese6tiod,
-Of course, the Subcommitted s:not seekpublien-'ell
tion of Ashland's trade secrets; it seeks'.in, 6 *ly production of documents in compliance with a Cqn gressional. subpoena. (Response of Chairman 'Mi:li s to Ashland's Oppos'ition to-Motion to Dismiss- p., 6).'
Weighing all of these consideratiolls, '. it appears to Ate
Court, -on balance, that the irreparable inju#' which Ashltnd seeks this Court to prevent- by -the IssuanCe of permanent injunctive relief is neither "presently thribiLtencid" nor 41711n, minent." The injuries complained of arrerather,"& 6speetivell.
in nature and may, indeed, never occur. Se,4 r
_4,n?,.e74can Stock Exchanqe, supra. [346 K'Supp. 12561) 1262 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) ] [Slip Opinion at 22 thist6poit at 90-91,
Tn conclusion the couit held that irreparable in.jury' co'u'ld not be established, that injunctive relief is not, warra.ntM, and that it need not reach the inerits of Ashland's complaint
However, an February 9, 1976, the cpu'rt granted plai fitiff'js motion for an injunction pending appeal on terms identical to -the temporary restraining order previously entered. The court said:
J]t appears to the Court that.Q) this action will bo, ban'
dered moot in the Asence, of an injunction pendlh g' appe'8 11 and that (2) the issnes to be raised on appeal have not herett).
fore been definitively sett led in prior case law and a re.of igiub,-, stantial import to the parties andthe general pubfid;'but th4' (3) the counf ervailing legitimate interests of the logiAti": branch militate against indefinite protraction Of ilniorlocfd.
tory relief by this Court. [See Ordet- and: Statetnent,. of Reasons Pursuant to: Federal Rules of Appellate Procedurb
8(a), February 9,1976, at 1.1
6ruary '19, 19,76 Ashlaiind'filed''
tatu&-On F 0, -F1,Vpea14-,rWWh is
pending before, t4e U-.S.:. CGUA., of Appeals 6r' the; Xsfr 4 of Coluriibia.'
The district court's memorandum 'and oxder,,;s ,14 the
"Decision" section of this report at 73 infra.

Consumers Union of 'the United States, Icv.Perioia Corre-aguelents' Asociation
Givil Acion No. 75-590 (U.S. Supreme Court)
BKof:-:--'This is an hoctidn for a declaratory juidgmnt brought by Constmers Union of United States,:Inc., publisher of Consumer Reports, a mnonthly magazine, against the Periodical Correspondents" Abooton (eria r t h Assdeiation)i and the Sergants-at-A rms
of Ad~it- Sate 'Senite and the House of Representatives. .
De~edatAssocatien Iadministers the Periodical Press Galleries of bdth Hose, e acrdanee with Senate and House Rules pursuant
to Aticle 1,Sectionr5 of the United States Constitution. h Ased tin consists of 525 memlbers '(reporters) chosen from 126 accedited publications and hasi a seven-moan. Executive Com-. mittee, whiel, isleauliorized to thse credentials to prospective memlaes Howeer efinalt-authority to grant or reject an application 'for membership is lodged with the Speaker of the House-of Representatives And~the. Senate Committee: on Rules, and Administration. Mem, bership ,in the Association offers advantages, such as the exclusive permission to attend on-the-record daily press conferences held b the Senatq. ledership and the Speaker of the House. In addition, inemberhehNip also ..facilitates access to White House press conferepees and Similar briefings at administrative agencies of the executive branch of governmentt'
Casewner .Reports is a monthly periodical which reports on the quality. of named products of interest to consumers. The pliiff a, non-profit organization, receives virtually its entire revenue from
news~~thnd an usrpion sales of Conswmer Report&.
On .November 29, 1972, -Mr. Gilbert Thelan, Jr., the Washington Editor of Consumer Reports, submitted his application tor mebrship to the Association as a representative of Cownsumr Repor8The application was rejected: by 'the Executive 'Committee of the Associatid i the behis' that Consumwr Reports is not "owned and oprated, independently of any industry, business, associati-on, or instton as, we ired byRuler 1I of the Rules' Governing PeriodicalPtes Gdlaes Mti 'Thelan sought: review of the committee's decisin.Th Sahate,.Oummittee on Bales and Administration concudu in there jan~yid the Speaker of the Hlouse made ne reply durin the months between plaintiff's request and the filing of this 'Ai H Beftdantrajeted plaintiff's application-on the, basis: that the rules gave xigte.. periodical press galleries -bar membership to any sopresenit pqexatiter shs. Defendant alleged that Go~uvesmReport&, A& ed by.A specialgroupoef advoaes (consumers. uHoweve,, MS Aist as prvB m~eber of th SOikoAhy:WO
an pil asx viw, appear to advenate-special intedeats, such as Afodern

Tire elrNainlTme nutyMiiayRtrmJua, App: tv e-,Bnkn nutyMgzmadFo rmig the ake*

tion o h ntdSaes

deteriewehrtecamzajutcal.Tecuthlt t congresoa uewihifigs pntecntttoa ihso person te hnCntsmnpeet rprqeto o h atson 6 .Sp. 82(93.

the intn ut

reasomably .er: arbitrarily denie4 lY. ,g
pulblishiers meet ing, u Inder, congresoal aspyecntiue
.a dirtt limitation Iupon the contentofnwaregiz:e
'in Brabury v. IHayes, 408 11.'8 66 681 Seas
Neirfigtk 6v. Maryland, 340 TU.'$. 2.68 .(951) ; Washington Post Co. v. 14indienst, 35,7 F. Supp. 770, reafl w rrter* eurd 357 F. Supp. 79 (fD.R.C. 1972);- Mc~oy v. Provnee Journal Co., 190 F. 2d T60 (1st Cir. 1951) Oetainly
theexclusioni of particular reporters from the news prested .each morning at on-the-recort press conferences, which hut-d8pds of other repoters are eligible to attend, affect~the content and quality of the news that is reported as well aass t6 the sources. of news. Moreover' it is important to recbgnizb that this is not a single, sporadic refusal of access. Exclusioin *from the press galleries constitutes a permanent disadvantage with regard to the gathering of news aid has a significant irbpiact when measured in terms of the First Ainendament, both upon the publication excluded and others in similar situatians. See IIal v. James,408 U.S. 1 183 (197) [36 F.

Finally, the court concluded Mftlhe Coastitution requires that congressional peass galleries remain. available to all members oa the workung press,- regardless of their affilistion",and that the self-regulation by indeinite standards and artificial distinctions was a volation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. [365 F. Supp. at S6.]
Accordingly, the court, entered a declaratory judgment against the Aswand Mn an October 11, 1973, holding that that porton of its rules bywhich plaintiff had been'denied aeereditation was-iltv of the freo ftep.s turned the First.Ame mnt and thatthe
reualt mrdtplitff" brde te re M fthe press, had
bee a enao the equa ,protection of the 1aws and aakigo lerty and property without due process of law, contrary to the First and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution..ra 7
['Ehe text of the opinion of the district or was printed iqR toe "Decisions" section of ,the report of be)- P~c ing~s and Ae idad of

Appeals for the District ot Coluinbhmtsere thb.dotiisiindt thed distret court. The appeals court held that the instant case was nonjustieable because it involved matters committed by the Constitution t6kid Inegislative Branch and that the acts of the Assoc4iggo gnA circumstances did not breech the limits of legislative immunity.
The ourtnoted that it was 'ne *Waoparenit frein t6 tat dfihe idle
-Nt i*i~ithiatitg purpose was. t6 sre AVailable spadce !thy hafde
a diAuihd Irns those whb& artr1bbyists or rptese6tinkd~w @ ## 6d ~iqd into st : t
4, 1%6 l hags all-mat *@ eli9ternalI prbcdsings 6f the, Coigms1
aWl tod 4 ths ieh t14inbiiity-,of thisi6 ~ r
fihtitf'9 eA testian tt sil6 IM II rinriged8t
th. b prbhnti~i a"Abbsgtium T rber f6thcil

ThNior v.oAdminirto ofneesradide prrtocndrth

'Cle Aon No. 751063tio (D.Clain.rrion Athr t ad
Brief.xFouono therinat-ri oi dniidwt R1*
Ford~~t an cone to thefome P
prsdetial matcerias a nd ae tinl-rreM is White Huse thate xctivet Offit laftwsWihit. wererelevantot o sev estgiosatoteCas pril kfe tion of eiea poseuor ThUS

re e ae -ninonn tmm reta ouA uigta hs Cue s


on t e'isave s,. of ownership of the presideAtial materials and tapes and: 0q re",nslbilitie 6f the F ord. Administration, with. .'respect to them., A_ respcese to that,., request. indicated thatin theopinion. of the Att oroay Qenoral 5-the: presidential nmterials: anatapes belo 'ed to the formi ,r V.resi&ut I I I rig
...,,but. tho governm6nt.had a,.xightto use said mateth "depository greement"
74d visory qp nion .,a
_/S)wipsona;greeMm was signed by, the fo mer.President and Arthn-r[ -,IF. Sanipsou, Admiuistrator. of th.e General'Ser'vices Administration', on September 7, 1974.
Thereafter, Jack Anderson, a well-known columinist, and ofliers, filed a petition'with the General Service Administration seeking access to these Inaterials u ant to appropriate provisions of the Fteedom of Information Act. The petitions w-ere'denied- by GSA.
On., October 17,. 1974, the -former Ptesident. filed a suit against Sampson -aind others, in the United States District Court for the District of Wnmbia %eking a temporary restraining order and prel ntinary injunctionAo-co el co liahee 'W'ithi the- "Nixon/Sampson agreement", and to pr vent unauthorized access to the materials and tapes. Mr. -Aindttsm, and: the special. prosecutor, and others-. moved- to interv-Mb-seeking A t eft-iporary restraining- order and preliminary injupLetion, to; prevent the'implemeiitation of the "Nixon/Sampson agreoment.1.1 U.S..District Court Judge:Charles R. Richey issued a temporAry I mstraining order prohibiting the implementation of the agreement until a full hearing could be held on the former President's motion for a, preliminary inj unction.
'A P',AjitiorL fo leave to p'articipate'a am2c
cu7 ae 'in this c-ccise was 4116d'iiid 'a ted'on behalf of theif Sena''tor Sam J. Ervin.,, Jr., and 'S fi tpks' ayl rd Ne'lsonand Jaco'bJavits and Representatives Wayne 'L., lla'ys 'aiid J6h In. Bradem" on NoVe er'll :' 1974. A separate motion bf _.& idsenta, ive Elizabeth Holtzman r leave to, file a'numicus brief 'qkiA s1go grtai&d, on: the same: dayTh i e- ie- g on' l P itioners, sought leave to participate in the pro4=we 6rdtt t brin 'to the attention of the -ieir intense
in oi g. court "tl
1. as embers of Congress having 'special responsibility with
61 dl' legri1ati"; dealing with the'siubject g Oil after"before the courtthTih6 VAinferianclb of ',the 8tatuv'jud ''eiiding6onsideration by the Contf6rl fiall' thin it'
ng wi S prim yya
g 0 ma I nd fundame'Tital author'
rahdiunpf EM, n et aL as. amiri, cupae. Nix''On V. &-Mpeon, Zx Adion:XO.' 7"518,(D.D.C. Vbv.'11, 1974)..] 11 MA0111iihe, Of 1..f e filing of the Ervin and Holtzman petitions, the
.had p i ed ic determinabill 40161 Which5 while making
tiop as to th e, title of the presidential materialS'prbviided foi- the presplacing thein'tuider the control of the A'dffiifq*sfta t "of V' the General Ser-nC'Cs. Adinirtistfatiokh,,-v itli all the ii ktirrlk N eh gin in Wa hij gton- no billhact: been tra'Asmifted by fsf"SOAAte feth& 116iise'Mifd rof6 red fo the ap e Ho
&6 p riiat use comportu
j a& 6f th6* grei5siomd pjtrtieipints -the 4 n4* *- bore:-a, ecial es sibilit W04 regard. to this, I p
gislation As. 6 iia a memoranrep' bfi- th6iilie half
1 '10
4AR": Jis %Chairman.
of ena, e oa' Qovexivne*, Operations., I which

ha ''rsddon over sueh legsisla'fion 'thb etate. Aies
a e~n Snator freer wisconsingls dhi ~bi a~ tepetd
'bil. mics Javits, Sebator from New' Y'drk isan rij~
iii frbmliOhio
o-p so thereof. Amieas H~ays,*'Roighet bov*t
is Chthmlf of! the Committe on, Hos I Xdliiistiin,
whic- risdiction over such legilaiiiii t6 IHblei
sBrdeinas, Representative t ifit IM a drhan of t1h6 relevat Subcommittee of the Hon kn i~Aba
tr ation Committee. [Id.]
The action sought by the andmwas setout in this 1 ~gW::,
Amici respectfully urge that the safegnarding of thee materials pending Congressional notion is a matter' of. the most compelling public interest. Accordingly; in light of thee eon.0, sideratient of. fundamental significatnee 'to amici mM -their colleagues in- the legislative branch, aici urge that th Goddt grant a preliminary injunction to maintain the status que.
Sixh an injunction will insure an 'opportunity: for dirderly consideration of the issues -by the representatives of th.. p..iblie in the exercise of their-special Constitutional responsibiliia
ties as trustees -of the people. It will" insure that nothn
tuntoward can happen to these materials while the 6
representatives decide how best tw exercise: their rsolfities. [Id.]
Although the Holtzman petition sixppor~ted. the satu qu 1os ion plf the Ervin petition~fu ly, As. Holtsman's mnemnora4d up submnitted for another purpose-to call to the court's ateto #0 .artit tha the principal issue mn this action was the owna i pp t4 tape
.paer. ccodigl,s. Holtzman contend e h~ the
Atorney General had already expressed his opinion mr that alof the disputed papers and tapes belonga totqf r es ,
e e o b f .............. !

thpe "level of vigor" with which the Department f Jusice w~ad arsue the defense of.any.action brought by A1: Jn--to .ob eitlier the return of, or compensation for, the proper. which t e
4 .the Attorney General alreadY agreed Were h&""woulK-~ eM tIhan equate. Moreover, she, maintained that they matter. was uwher Complicated because the Department wastcently. repreentag ,fr. Nixton in several sits brough agaips6 him whl hras Pespiden4 thus raisig an..ethical qupstion aq (e whether .it. cold rqp his adversary(the, Unitd Siates) inp htagation over theo' appeih4 of papers ad tapes ni question,,
To remedy, the .ta.on, s.r.oltzman llg we he intended toin'troduie legi to provd f Q in lieu of the ]eartment 9t Junstice,. to rpep
in l ltigtion relap~g tp py,4 issue mn this case. [u rxa zaof, ogep :
ma samious enri.e, T....,e....
JudgeRichey held a hearing an thep
18, 1974, .but withheld any decipijon anpd aske.'o fr.e am P provide himn with WAditioAal in*fortnMtioi t0a* ffj tf the pending lawsuit on th'e bill then be~fdrb thd ow

Su i,0tfK _oi gj e passedd
4 d ial Reeordii gs
S. 4 0 e V i041-bi '6 ,,P -ig
and terria wassWi) a into]A* 94 Dec n*er 19,
0 Y.1. to 49e t,, the f4imler'Presidei
oe i .1 "
brou.' -Tx I
9 Ir P, District 0
Colum, ja1oe4j9 nits enfibrcewout wt oyu* thit, dressed
tl e Opp; nz attv'61044, p s,, Civil
?"T 0,0 V, 120 19 4 At- same
Ac ioA No. 74-4852 (D'D.C.), fil; time, %fr. Nixon asked that a three-i udge' court be c 0-nvened t
tb 0 pq82 2N4; (1970) to.h6ar a id detk-rhiiie th6 cc nstitudoilitFelkiih: agkftea'The Ie" ji d. ',Rich before
'. f i F e *a assigned to u ge, i ey
sbliij tod case8i-aforo'm 'e'ntiofied:,wer then pending. The of pes. and
-the mAterials, and ta'
priNege against theii diwlqsure, which were raised in the do solidated tases'* fb h'*4XteAdedto- MV. Nixc&Whlo t 1 6ceiftt ehnllen e. On Jftnu.4ry 915,! Mr Nix ji mo v6d, lor a p elimihftry; injunctioll
separAte o easiom,'during the 5 weeks following institution of Mr. Nixon's action of December W,49'4he (Mr,,'Nixon t4 ugh counsel) requested Judge Richey to initiate the staMtdry 106 diire -10hd f6'06 I 6-rhidtidn of'(W-distriet court of three judg4g. rihk1thAt p iodJttd 'Riehey wds preoccupied with the console ated case andpla"edjo complete work on them before turning his attention;16 the'diallbil&l case. (Nixon v. Administrator. bf G-I m&,,Setv& aqpdm)
Having Jailed th, conviuo*,Judge Richeythat the. vpointiwiA, of a thre "iWO'cowt :took? priority 10 flus, 1hatter, Xr, Nixon filed a petitiowfdr sArrWof mai"ai wusin the USXaurt of;Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directing Judge Richey ;to! grant the applieatiom: [foul ia Ah. rk ej udges court. imwediattly, and give, the challengoftiae PnotitY iov& -the :comolidatedcitses is "gertedly -required by sedtiom 1054*)- of th an(I Nlaterials
e ii Pmesident6l' Riocordings,
Ths(aptvals i court, ik a p& ownam ordev aad,. opiniou fi-led Janu ary 3j yl,197bi;deniad Ue4ormer, FmidertVs, petition stating that the t did however, hold
issuan o"i 4';wwit bf wwndamW wM unneowwily.3 I I
that JUdpf-RMey, erred 40 de1Ayijig.!acfioAon th e applicabon for a: three.-judg tpaakL1A1thoag4 the fcou.rt., stated that anapplication forthe conv mmg ofmielV,&rtouvtii3'st4tutor.,llyeiititled-,to expeditious treatment under 28 U.S.C., 2284-the mirt hold thpA beyod these considerations, the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act requires the trial judgeto give p tjority to such an application the A p4
onsi4 r4 oi egor YWS I Wterials
1P. Vo P. -t at t
ot pe L ,)is4,6t, Xaim
&AVr & udae
%. n e Di'sct OU2 or i rn jurisclic-.
la "i q,
tion to hear challenges to
., j, orwns 1 iriliclity
of this title," and speciAe'a11' p=Uie that"[alny such chal773 _"W4 1but qw*- W T10411
,,JIM Q M AN. V"^-r%4C%
."T 1111P V, i0q), ; ,

th8 blit 11~dz' bt l a:W Icht ie t esy
integrl part of his "challeg, tiip i;r
%itehbb outwas "a Lhttet-iuibzi~l nir s otitiOn.****' l evarahe6
content!od' by o t o' e 6; cu, riae th 6v 8 etbg 2, SAn
2284 ate irioperahle in the sitation at' 4.V [Niwpk
$518 V. 2d 427, 49. 17)1
Though the. court ackno-lded e the~port 1 r;eom
remedy, under, the c ircumstances, iet.'saw no, ocicasit'- psuae of a writ, sijace having advised -teDistrict,.judge .g f vnlw It assurmed thp lower court would proceediu %cpora w lieapqllate,opinion. #6.. ., .....
On the. samee day (January 31) inwh1ich,4te pp'Is 9pirt.had issuel its order and opinig, ..Jdefce. ieleag a, 98 Pge
opinion in the consolidated cases. t the. spee .tixpe, *(udgeA' issued a summary and synopsis. of his qpaop .wwQch appetsi~t entirety .as, follows::
.. RxcissY, UsiEBD C AT~ 1ISTRUCT
A .1'Introduc~tiar
These consolidated cases present a uniqne controversy, tle
he-art of -which -eone'ras*'the, ownership 'of: and- tke right to,!
assert or waive a privilege with respect t6 ohe '.'Presidential mnsterials and tapetesreorded, conversations! of .the thexn
Administration. "
These actions are -before the -Conrt on the following io,
tions:.-plaintiff Nixon's motions' to dismiss the Hollmn, et al.i
and Aniderson suits for lack of stariding';, the governmentidfendant's motion to dismiss all the actions, except, tha by the
eial Proeceutor, on theroun they are moot n
on inotionsi for summary judgment or partidlakisharp dg*
Tnent, by plamit~s'* Asderseyt The -Reodtrtees WOokidnithe dbi* Freedom' of, the Press, et al., Lillian Hellman, ot, iind the
Special 'Proseentat, oen his c~ountattlaim doid debelanctor.
lief, and as the intetwenor-defendamoin -Nfmnes tSaepan
et al., (C.A.- If 74-1518) f I I

T' eort finkd that p1aintiffs hAnet
and The Reporter-s Committee f r V
at.l have standin to site iiha&r t
Ag and'-to phallenge thd Nix: 'St
ten oar 7, 11974.amI

The Court1finds tiit although the 1eid0Wtialeordity
and Materials Preservatish Abt of December t 10, 1974, hali

fiestheNixn-Sapso Agttf~entof eptmber7, 974 th aA:Act oes ot, ~lve th ba~c uestons f ower io
V e rec r iith
0e, 103 dontialma er'w. d not vhlice tho,'Orew r~idat m it .,rvv egoin o
X, asse a1.11.
igns otl
t~i 6efor, th, qyefi f own101i

decied ssu ras'eA 'b'th leai" th regad toMr.Nixo's asered FurthAmedmen clths.

wA n
ic atUtc reW, let
t 7 t4' 0& e 9f Itho' Pikide.Wfb n lned iliTr6 i rpeoraino i's tth- 116 biflffioi to -the'' Overhni f, wid Ima e4 b
incum ni IN4iden t
0. Fourth Anw-ndu ent.
1. N r.. Nixon's Fourth pii righ
Ajoen0im t ts. have not Irn
violate eftuse the. 'TN--'ovembef "Oth. Agr elii6A:t j 04 0 J#f a On7 eral warren nor 11TI to
does lf subj eA h i un ei ible,
search 'and seizure. Howev4r". iliideT,'the frcqii A ,cl ;i wfNixon's right of privacy, inust bl afforded prote'aidn .
2. Mr. Nixon's right t6p vacy dots not entitle him to anjnj ugetion, bo.thei, Coijrt has the power-to, protect, his rig4t& andoiose the t b,
gqvemweu Y.
The'Oourt ''Will ie-quire'the 'folio, rocodiife. lv ith"
7 g 'i 1i
gard to e#ectuatipn of-th6''N61T:eii1b6f- 9U A" wifli
q e.s I
regard, to, ft'fi r ii ts fo' r" Pre's'idential' materiOg tape recordiffigsniad pu iia"ilt to' c6uyt br e r or regard:6'iiiy ie e9ts mad '."tWe F '&MA tA
motion Act or
t''. DO&47A n'-is:' The' 96-6km ont defendiii6 6ft
their agqjits, prigr to any g9yernmental examin4holx
of the fat tiitils, afl t r-1 0'
e a' o eKregate f o bk or,e f, I
e eld 164 t
6m; a!ny e
nt O ich lii'de niM' e, rs as4 e
me y
Court; (b) to mark those, po-rtioqs of a-ftY1 e
W-1 hich, 'Aip deeffie"d It, foir7is, d fined "th-9.
w dt
itho ; A infe
that p ortiqn or any 9ther. poiitoft Of-A 6 Vie
2.. Opeg: Tfie'zovelr r 6iit f fiaants dr ihe'ir
: :, 1: 1 V IA
Akents priQr to ariy'.&oVern#ieAta1 lhin#104
ape-r' eo d W r t role Xo re fl-On
Mr, Nixou or his covn el tojisten, tq tho faDe-yrn-f
cor e coftVersa ions v r:
a e-pecc6hVers n c Fk ains whtter;s No
as defied b t is ii'
0.. yt-X*ffiqU )Xr 1*0 Pr is COW. se= e
"I"his P IIFP V 'K
116 'd 0 1
001clij f '6 g n 'e;
I, PP77P 4: -ayi g i e;w S
7 "
01 *f- 1 11
j ng qe p 11
operator ), a, A
mech' ,P 60sen byOM Pr. or P

r e oporAt 4r ghA 6;a i

-,one (hereinaftei, ',Irelporder, X' 4- AM,
a Mt," Ie4, c m 0 DWA iA MIA and (2), 1
qi u'duheW -th6'bfhdi (h bAndWr
11131,1"Wall in OuW lh AAtyA6AdpIi, &tdIh ft rd 6Mtder' A, AW
Cr, n 11-- dduif e ini the"
_Xbe6i or, iis s0l"itt
Wh Xre
&8, of *11, atilike the,
1 NO,! s
'A i
j nd
'(ffj The :d f6i qhidl-play thela-Pe'6n Reo M.olt,
Nlt6n::6i his tiny f6mversatift ot
ittlow fvef lbf) te, As defiAed; by: this! Coo, A
C it pri*a
&e 6i*06t Shall stbp wor&r"B at tho vohithei ce' ih'A edhV rAfibn oi rti&i, thetedf so 119 ment- 14 po
Oat 6dirATeii-8ftffijh or pdft% th r6 Wot tb r, 6 66Pd e oil
im" 6A: "Af --the'' t'eriAlrtationi;,of the::
t O*Rvorsatioh -.[orj'P>rtion'thexeof designateded as pr17 vatie%,. an& ke -opeirokor, ahalIalso,,ufilizirW, -thp COURI, -tet imuk in. fu I og, the. digiWniA'm ber pf I Ow cam,
jilelikenient, A -fd t.efndnaut *on of the.: conversation. or,
T Portion, Wore designated -as private. When a. disaxiseswith respect to tbe Iv4idity of A claml..
that it pirkic,"r, itetn,, Qt portioon.thereof,: isprivate
PoA notice of co, use,15 the'Court shall. examine, the
'snaterial, orfape- cm rsAtign,
Prded, icqnvo or portiou
thereof, in camera. This shall be folloW,,ed by a ) ear.
Iug.! widqrtho, prQoednre;:set forth inAhe. 0 Qn
to whetl -qlar::.
burdenn, of ,,proof as- 4er a partic
Popot, .0)? : taj>eretQrd 4 couvorsAtion, or portion tlaereof Jspprsonal,, sha.11.,,be., boirjie ,by Mr. Nixom
FoII6*ihg'th6 r'lease'of AIdg6.;Richey.?s'bphiibA, the'foriner',Presi-dent of the,.,appolils cdurVs -earlki refusal of a
writ of 'A *440iu*
The tipp idg Oouit_,. Ift 6pirtion I and okl&r of Fclbruitry'14, k -1975, contintl6d ifs AWy of Jatuaiy 31 of any, 6i-der implonikyting: Judge 'o thati since a ilirte' tidge x'pahel was Richey% -Ppinidn. The'06 rt n' ted.. ,conv etie& ow.'FW)iVAri 5" t6 coiisider *heithcir-it prQperly'shotild, pass ..On
on th6. tbt4itufidnal 'igstie, Tio furthOk' adi by, ffivo'aPPCAtS court was A06&ditt thAt. Mg*ard
Thb hp ftii iedtirt, ii6ted L that in, Aa eatlkr, dpihioty -ftTalwar y 31] ,.it took pains to alert Judge Richey to the .1 of clls 'A' J f the p4 ri posi. g.o,
ConsoNated)e4stg, Mi3rd Adtine 6wth8 rfdlr I tl Pre'il&hV aplAication for throne itifte PM61.1 7-h-6 court- 46idl4t *Ag bb*iofi* Mfi&Arlg to
the 6 4iii&,ofl [Underihe"00trifto, 6 6al judgment Ili' 2t) lpii'6t, fluit jpr&Mddi Treliftatibil of 1"t(stiAl i Aiiltg dkided b4t th If6th*r Primi
in tlWttotdft],'Th ,' A Ient:&Idht be
barr4 Of kv4Wrwinq I iff th* V-' AW;ki i 'Wator
of OWK S&W!; Ovff Jkdtib 1?0 t4 4862 t(D!A. lesi qi fttrary
to detM ftvaii fi!g-vOhlbh Wily'deei6i6*61 61 't C


v. aga m Ro 11 ( ted." [Nixon
V. Richey 513 2d 40 .
of the esdn l recording &noAct.
The cort stated, thl therep were two. eala intended to
and did accomplish by, th assage of the Apt,: sigth Federal Government's interest in, e~quiig o-n~ ve~r. 4 power to protect the Presidential waterialg, an 2 ~~d rinstion of
possible coistite utinl clgllenge *' h d .tpAt
The court noted that the iliree-ju ndeidrre
delineated iar~eotio 2Mooday*t 28 -of Ilf.United. Statee Code was eliminated in, Confergeg A i ea sure, witif SectioA 1.4a) of the Act, in its present form,, whc enables a single ,udge iothe U.S. District GCort;*for the Disticit of Columbia to hear any, tiutional challenge to this Acts, was, approved by Ithe Coaferease 04mmittee, and subsequently enacted. into law [513 F. 2d 0t.439- 442].
The Act (lid not, however, prohibit the petitioner from making an independent application under 2284, supr4 The court said;
The remarks of Representative Bradernas demonstrate that
Congress intended to preserve single-jwdge jurisdintiont over the consolidated cases, even tor consideration and decision of challenges to the constitutional validity of the new Act ini the event that such chailleniges- wereasserted in those cases, The remnarks plainly --ddatmpleted, too, that any such challenge would utilize that opportunity. But Representative:Bradiemas was completely silent on the questin whether -such: a challenge could only take that route, hnd *so is the. rest, of the
legislative history.
We needhot ponder-whether congress could validly have
imposed the requitrkmentr that such at challenge, neli only be enter tained in the cnsolidated cases.' Nowhere -in the legislative history 1s there ahy suggestion that Sctions- 228 and W84 would, not, enaip separate s.itlpresentigg a eqnstital tionl chllenge to the Ac i tlhe ce t of,( a demand for injunctive relief. It would have been simple for Repo ,v
Bwademas to state, and indeed fo. ogress to. requisq,. that
thase sections would not. apply t~o challenges to the Aeto,1had
1hat been whaLt Congress had in mind. Neit],ias howeves, was
qone, pn4 the. counts are left with the problems ot date wng,
Whaverpetitioner's separate-suit challenge require thwusual,
three-Judge court, particularly in light jo f,.the general soon of poetruction that. repeal of a statute by :mpliC asD is
dastavored.,. .. .y.
ispensible toi its objectives. the immediate ponsiat io& ad pagolutjqonpt any challenge to the coaistitutionstas twO vid, sty of any ,prprision, of, theouewA .. 8t was to me sathaOt dqegee of. expedition .that eath -o Age4 bll$ iily '%s] the Senate and the House conta tle ymeqkg t such.
ch*llenges bq heard ad -detprwdptisd by, % Aloeja neowut wit direct appeal to the Supatup 'oat ,,anrdcoie a saso

,quqmen -hat oth co r poced- mmedateyot~e, rcese

_qwij ej ,A reslve he pa~ecre-.
But vihit'Cngr~ execte,-ad- wat.Secton 05f()ra
,end~dwoud itwa: tat ny-andal clfilengspr-h valiityof te At wuld e mde i th cosoliato cae befre ude Rchy a asinle udYge aterapropiaed amenmens,'m'd aditon -of irtes or~hatpurosewer acoo-plshe. Wht Cngr~s pparntl di. 'lt aticpa f
j~ftut6h h28
w, eparat 8tk &uned, onSecio"'as
228,16 46, i o ox Aho fahin te c sttuionlit ofth Ad, efoei.s hre juge athr- hana sngl-juge ribnal
,tM F'2d t 4424"3.
Uh~~t-de ht htCnrss atd"a pe n'dca

to judicial review, the cout+'Pl dii Atliel lie *- '16 Mi ,stitutionally protected interest& of Mr.Nixon tlftt is allOWly morke& by,, 6 -takino of -his into Ajustod
at 1841rinf/m, )-i lifft ti, 0
1; 0_111 [' i;A irlfl",f Claitno Relating to tAe f8epaiW": of P o4vm t
.,Ij in. 4& 0(
e.,court arat
PIRN4 -trin'O to, supp )A*." #
pass a, tatutq, ji pay way tqW4tpg upfqj the::Exoutive. T6.-4n y, T99a4v
e owiPAraP(q, 0 i'n '0 fL Jn
is that the-Act might, in 9PTAIT PT ,T M Ot
vade, the preg*4 al m
attaches to the small fraction of the mifena. h renuin imp eft 6 res
thinks it d6h tful thAV it, ,t*t Iola
incuThbeht -!hkY'19tdtt 46h, claim is entitMd.lto, Mh iv I)es *160f il t of
ib",6 Ak
&nflftl d by LfdZlnif
i reet g ch vi
SIC Overninent'4r isMp
Rerf orm.identical tasks for the materials every Pres uft).r 11 ..J
since Herbei4 '116,ovep,. A IV6 HOC The0bititurrA& the other", hw', d,, that'. ebtiorre Ud:AAxple: f M- ghddte
screening b -6pvoinm6htln atchiVists Tathqethlpi 16diff6l' gy Mr. Nixon,': 4hd la6ks: thtir expekise, .,AAd di4ii"ikes6db"
s- t i hii ft dntt "'fi
The two Yho P tW I tot*st 86i4v d. bY- p V t'
tion and respcinsiblo, ftosaini'Pnt p eside..AtWf a
aining,'i 6i pyete t' Matdfio 1 666'
and (2) ass,,uiiiigih'&,'Avitilabi.lity oft6'mat6t"h1$ofeft#. needed fotcbnt!nui iA 0: IOCU: tive polildymaRg. Othor iff ests 'er oedb ine fsV6Wt
tho Adt hi& iWfbrihffiglh
the Watergafe'msitt6t s'aiiid omu-ritig, th6,,i+4H011itY di ifid1 0_ eva 16 *0 ti -i
trials that ingY 'bo, I itif to gis a ve fi&estl tibM bt judicial proceedings, Be&u96"oflhe, ifianhe
s6nAl n1piterialg T1 1 nTilftgkd, With qffiei f orMi, ri
hensive wr6ening to ibipreiseri6'thb ohly feOible
tecting: these' impdrtini !Me osts.! t, 6. coikt filkg IM Slight jnro d on- pre8ido.1tititt e6w6dehti fityl leefti4 I bt, 4upht screening is outwei d t ftirth4 th6s6 ImPbr.L.
ghod -by fhe'jio
tant legislative o!&jbet14es.,,, Slip. at 14 Jr R t i.t' ipwv & ,4j

It appears from the record that plaintiff can validly clsim a privacy interest in offly,,Osfiaalllfra etion of the materials. Yet the historica*1 prirticp of de facto control by P)Ms"dents; of pt*9i&nt11tY intf# 4 t e"WMft fbl& IhAt i66idless of *rhire VwiietAip--d fm, MOL4Aw li two
nem- ii6t: bo lreachod-aiplilwtl has,;A iftfth 16W
even by mere screening by government archivists conducted

unde 1 itif wit rfigondii'g ap licason Ipliatingth

intelminlednatw of he aelis the ou finds c

iar! oaiii rtept a cilatial
objective ndslayieening teA.Thprvtematmenial beween outnumber oythe reitss arequn-riatend ilated- sto thoe ojeciae.Te asturei ns tha paeri;haio aload privacl causetamreete archvprocsntgovrnethantr by pblicaess, wichsnedts et aendresresidesnt wieranin, nwdithon s e sthem cariske disupting curen, a se>1ayrkmg and wezrde orddre lawieforeet omtivs., Inlyh of the sensitives and compex proailblms involveds intrusivg hearors of fedteirtat iialaivbeendom vacy~ plintff has finishted htfii Seri as. Prsiet but8

e edm a pesidenl liao p 'Plaitils would rmenmtaii prredctnd ogn the assulft cess ofa altrei indclasifing theim.licFiny rivayuld olitiatelysocitonsiler pnf to pbi less.l ing~lmeiate riedecessofrst rAucesors tsposo
review, s pres o b~nsb.Stnlpo. ati 93-a8997 i ifra..
Equ f ial P aties
urin thaouts viewdnofevence in thten leiltie
................................................................. ..... .............. .......... ................e d....
plitf. sr

spcsimeiteps Peiens herppeshd led

bei4 epsie i reidnia lbare weronth hoe th viaiiyt rmt motn oenetlitr

ose hot a rites din thenl dwpitin ofe nn appa o f the inpcing, oftafingr aserwie doings of are odterlb tedocumetpale tape coriRgshor otherani Mi h faludrthd p* iratsofpnto ceact eept fr ega prnceedigs, specions y a Mr. a Naeb o chieinae fraentiffor unse r urotbnesos yth t xeuthvelbranc nitnihth yohsso
The court alonoed that the portofnappa hand erated n iontv. Rsihyu53t. 2drt. 448in thtinwold dissolitn staya anueary of1,h 1975, oni the cofnsldats e ned case "proceedings, neeh tdisee-judge couret indict itrbserieved otherwneediorin he say. tease "hain owentpaer juagen rcins acti iems rec lygh tind the noitedscase toe act proced' inr wlaeveal auroceemsn
fit ir. ligh of the posibilitgofatpedasent thise cton *urn 81ip Opiction at 16u.1;tisrpr a 0. The court alo apeasroed theatato the conr fapaslid ated casesxon Ft ebr,53F da.48ta-twol isleii tyo auary 5,1976
Status.nhe consolidated caseshavedhadstheenstay on threrprocor.dgente itlivd the nhiee o the seta nof ap6t, iched "ang nwa ntee audmtion thisatow resn hnui bfre te gthrede court fldantc of appeal todisle the ty hSpremet

fth fu.llhte of the ourtpl of ApadcsionsadUS Tianion Ta 1.r 1;chs oio w-rt 108.r1 nth Tansoano Tinothe ort of Courl Preoedingesta an Ahecons ofliteasneest totebCoua res, Apil156175

Thdgenfl t of the threns s evedgy te court pno andodis prite isno the"Deiins" suterction f ts rportiae9s. nfa


The 19T2 Nixon presidential re-election campaign, rather than to their official duties.
Filed by Public, Citizen, Inc., a nonprofit citizens' organization of some 65,000 members, an objective of which is to ensure that gov. ernment ofAcials carry out their duties in accordance, with the law and that such laws are enforced and its founder, Ralph Nader, the action named as defendant former Secretary of the Treasury George P. Shultz. The former members of the White House staff named in the complaint were Charles Colson, Special Counsel to thePresident,- Robert IT. Finch, Counselor to the President, Herbert G. Klein, Director of Communications for the Executive Branch, and various members of their staffsof the INrhite House staff and the staff of the Vice President.

The complaint was based upon Article I, Sectionf.) of the Constitutto'n, which provides, in part, that "[n]o money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by
it was alleged that payments to staff persons, "devoting substantially all of their working time to the re-election campaign of President Nixon." from public mone-ys violates this constitutional Provision andthe provision of Section 628 of Title, 31, United States Code.,since such payments were, notauthorized by an appropriation. of Con-o-ms. The, code provision states -. "Except as otherwise pro1-T5
vided: by' low, sums appropriated for the various branches of exP"'the public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made. and for no others."
On'4 rch 84 1973 1 'IT.S. District Judge June L, Green denied a motiort b:.Y;dMfen4ant to, disiniss the suit for ]a cJm-,. of stmiding on, the pa# oUplaintifts. Subsequent to that denial, the Supreme C urt decidec two cases involving flAe issue of standing and defendant renewed his motion to sm king the court to review its previous holding in
tigrht- of tbese two recent decisions. Judge Green agorreed to do so.
TTY. a -memorandum opinion handed down September 30, 1974, Judge:Greein granted defendant's motion to dismiss. concludino, that 11[fln view of these recent narrow interpretations of tax pa vpr standing F UAitM States v. Rich ardson. 418 U-S 166 (1974) and Sch Tesik er 418 U) S.. 208 (191
Re. emqi.qg Com-mittee to A(Oop the. JVar -4) ] Ms
60urt is 'constrained to- conclude, that the. plaintiffs at bar fail to
-P gthblfsk standing to pro med with this case."tPublic Citizen v. Mmon, Ci il Action No. 280-172,(D.D.C- Sept. 30.,19,74) ; Slip Opinion at 4.]
JUdge. Gtiepn el aborated in her opi rdon
-In, the P i. ts C1111ses the Supreme
tichardsan and Rese
Court reviewed and reaffirmed its conclusion that in order to establish standing as a taxpayer, one must meet the narrowly defined tests enunciated in F7a-3.t v. Cohen 392 U.S. 83 (1968)13
.which are:
Challenging an enactment under the tax!D91
and spending clause of Art. 1, 8 of the Constitution
And, M c-Oain ing that th challenged enactment excee& specific 6011stit"Utional li-fni 20ns imposed on
ga spehding powen,"
tj p twiing nd


The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear [i
Richardson and Reservists] that taxpayer standing can be shown only when one challenges Congremional enactments
under the taxing and spending clause of Article 1, 8.
Plaintiffs herein fail in both respects. They are concerned
with Executive action, and they base, their claims not on Article 1, 8, but on Article 1, 9, clause 7of the Constitution. [Slip Opinion 2-3.]
Status.-An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit filed by plaintiffs on October 9,1974, is pending. The filing of briefs for both parties was completed on February 14, 1975, and oral arguments were heard on October 21, 1975.
1 The full text of the district court's opinion was printed in the eport of Court Proceedings and Actions of Vital Interest to the Congre88, April 15,1975.
$octfalist Workers 1974 National Campaign Committee v. Jennings
Civil Action No. 74-1338 (D.D.C.)
Brie f.--On September, 10, 1974, the Socialist Workers 1974 National Campaign Committee, other State and local Socialist, Worker Party Organizations and individual members of the Socialist Worker Party filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to declare unconstitutional the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971.
. '' The defendants in the case are the Clerk of the House, the Secretary of the Senate and the Comptroller General of the United States, each of whom is designated as a "supervisory officer" with whom statements and reports required under the Act are to be filed. The plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the provisions of the Act requiriAg the disclosure of the, identities of party members, contributors, and others who support "lawful, though controversial political activities," deprive them of their freedom of association rights under the First '.A.mendment. Plaintiffs also assert that the reporting and disclosure requirements "deprive the plaintiffs and their supporters of the right to associational privacy and to political anonymity under the First, Yourth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution. *. "
On October 2,197741 Common Cause moved to intervene as a.defendant. The motion to intervene was granted and plaintiffs' motion for a three-judge Federal district court to rule on the constitutionally of the law was denied on October 10, 1974. The denial was appealed, and on December 12, 1975, the district court granted plaintiffs motion for the three-judge court.
Plaintiffs sent interrogatories and requested the roduction of documents from: W. Pat Jennings and his successor EK(und L. Henshaw as Clerk'of the House of Representatives;. FrancisR. Valeo Secretary of the Senate; and Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller Gener l of the United States. The House passed H. Res. $63 on November 135 1975 authorizing the Clerk to answer the interrogatories. and to provide copies of notifications of noncompliance or a parent violations sent by the Clerk to campaign organizations affifiateA with the Socialist Worl ers Party from January 1, 1975 to date, after the court has


detrmied hatsuc documents material and relevant. The court so etemie n November 1 195.
A seondsetof interregatore and request for the production of docmets relatin to the Sociais Workers Party was received by eac ofthedefendants on Mrh 8, 1976. The House passed

of H. R s6 in allowing the Clerk to taewith him copies of all
"nonpubic"recrdsor documents relating to plaintiffs or to any
prevousSocilis Woker art comitte, mandate or official

foro Represetrictivf ColnmbLa

Unitedsen Staesv.MchesCriminal~r~~' Actio and6-3 (..

Brief.-On March 31, 1976, ~~an nomto a ie nteUie

Civi.Aokio Nas. 75-1974 and 75-1975 (D.C. Cir Bii b, :-Th s, waan action for declaratory and injntv rle n for am-gesbioght in the U.S. District CourtfothDirctf Colubiaon Nvember 11, 1971, arising out of tears fsm 1 ,20.pesonsabled on the steps of the House o ersnaie at te 0pit Bilding on May 5, 1971. RepresntaiveRonald V. Dellums, a plaintiff, bogtteato as a iniviualfor violation of his constitutional igtanfo intefernce iththe discharge of his constituionldte sa M.Le~er~ofCongess.. The other plaintiffs, all arrestddmntaos sue inivdualyand as members of their class, ekn0.dmgs expuugeentof rrest records -and destruction of ilglyotie fin~rprnts pd hotographs.
Defedant naed in the complaint included teCifo h
Capiol olie, hief of the Metropolitan PoliceDprmet h Disric o 'Clubia and the U.1S. Attorney Generl Nuerou pkial motions were filed on behalf fteprist th'j ac rsulig in a number of rullings by U..11 'rc Jdr Willim B.Bryat, in which he denied plaintiffs'moinfrape liminay: inuncio, granted viaintiffis' motion to minti h fa asAc~a,.s ctin nd required defendants to suppltopanifth i~a, ddeses of the persons arrested on theCptlseso
I ri, in oder that notices of the class actincudb et aadpemitted extensive discovery throg.teueo


tive, a permanent injunction, to require defendants to publish H.R. 10511 (93d Congress, 1st Session), an act to amend the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, to authorize buses purchased under its provisions to be used for chartered bus services.
Defendant, Thomas M. Jones, is sued in his official capacity as Chief of White House Records, It is bis,,duty to reemive bills presenod by Congress to the President and to deliver those that have become law to the Administrator of the General Services A uw'istration- (GSA):. for publication.
Defendant, Arthur F. Sampson, the Administrator of,:GSA, is required to publish both in slip form and in the Vnite4 States Siatutes at Large, bills that haw become law'.
On December 21, 1973, Congress completed. action on: H.R. 10511.' On December 22, 19731 the 1st session of the 93d Congress: adjour ed 8ine die. Under Rule III of the House of Representatives tl; Clerkof the House 'Was authorized to receive messages from the Tregident during adjournment.
The 10-day period for the President to approve or veto. the bill'havired on January 3, 1974 the President issued a 141&morandum m I
oNi'spapproval" on January 4, 1914, in which he annowaced. his disapproval of said bill and sought reliance on the pocket veto provision of Article I, Section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution for his veto of the legislation.
On March 24,1974, plaintiff filed asupplemental complaint which included a second claim. for which the same relief was sought. This second claim. involved H.R. 14225, which had been- clear,64- by Congress on October 16,. 1974, for action by the. President.' T he, bW amended the Vocational, Rehabilitation Act by extending for one vear authorization of appropriations for programs for the handicapped, amending certain Federal programs for the blm' d1and providing for the convening of a White House Confer6ce on Handicapped Individuals. On. October 17, 1974,. Congress adj ourned. for a 32-day recess encompassing the mid-term Congress ional elections. The Clerk of the House was authorized to receive mess age's fTam the President during the adjournment. That same day'the bill was Presented to the President. His ten days for approving theviu 'was to expire on October 29, 1974. On that day he returned thebill to the Clerk of the House with the President's obiections in which he stated that the absence of his signature from the bill prevented'ifIrom becoming law because of the pocket veto. Congress reconvi6ned on November 18, 1974, and the House on November 20 and the Senateon November 21 voted by over two-thirds to override: the: I President's veto. On November 22 the bill was delivered to defendant Sampson, who had refused to publish it as a law of the United: Statesi,
The plaintiff alleges that'defendants' acts -have. denled':him the effectiveness of his vote as a U.S. Senator, denied him the opportunity to override a veto and injured him as a taxpayer and,,as: a United States citizen by depriving him of his right to, have the executiye branch comply with the mandates of his elected representatives in the Congress.
On January;19, 1976,Ahe district court rejectedihe defendanW motion for dismissal which had argued that Senator: Xennedy lacked standing and that the controversy was moot since Congress had sub-

seThne ogt,eentt cSento by efaendadte in fahe of the nta we.sat" syuplicinti to ionvehistsupplinn c in Asidn ord ha determie cth ote Ihasehe etor Ia~let, hat theailthe pet vetdiniti-s lgslation asaw -ontersession retesseas an voadiounmen hs rts as th Unihed.Sae
ioded .thathcousd"e fenngr4to hlhav nopbihdr% IR
peie- obetifbcit. repitif aeuet aiddhig to
?ry 1 t ioi thas thlsbec e l w iacco srda ofiek th epo
aggpt o t e etun vn ees durinaor suchncrios.qirn
the fal ets opbs the ourts eoandu lan ohsrdler hs prineeo "Dains" secido the aeis re ot th 1b9,inf.

vilAtion Apri 13,-9760 ( h1:stceDe.D.C.)ild oe
serine.-stemn os. osuit for neandamsands ijtve nrelief, ah negesh b ariinfo in al sleeao contract t -andhi
iffotiii 6 ligge tat hReme appare asamwtes before autc U.S. rtrea.gIn committ res eeand pridaed tiny whch"rsu econvictiono ceran interntioa crie figlue,"hec.;tr
f sesin recergsuc "nd-aervices"teo Deaten Cofgrss rietx the os of Csoreal utoies asa agllntd Onittio's 1sie fate, autorenlydeedant 3afiel rte
agtte mdeiverbsr veoies toin shPeriod
Th fl tet ao tho's meada d a rm ig brnefan h
"Deisonseto of sesrpota19 nfes."
Peifp V.Viy, tthe ees ta eedn ie
Br.-Tnito as witn agreementawhereby the. dedn agr

provide t11 ~the panifandpisaily wit a inew identity an toS

he Plaqntif futher t Sings i. lat 1 the new identities anMi 'aino :F tteggam hisaib 6ts
ofte fndans plaintifR Per'tf has sofee-hwtt~~gd

Stat.-Tho case same before Judge Jpqqph. WdyVis tritt Judge for the District of. Colunbiao.n pha n f ,.o p+ appliation for a temporary mresaining ord n aer.,i Judge Waddy en.Eebruary -13,1976, the cour dei'1 8api ation for a temporary retA order W.fadi o aponrdthat the action be dismisd ,4* f auge O~
Pelroff v,. Manuel
Civil Action No. 76-04)MA (D.D.O..)
Bief.-O ebraiir 11, 1976, Franklia Per
agans Philip- Manner, a member e atf h,86t ep nent Investigations Subcommittee. Peroff, whohs eaopn ment informer, alleges that Manuel made public s Ve'f~ ov' name and address, Peroff further alleges that Ma~ulsfiutt an tain the confidentiality of' the,' infotffation. hft ekitdi~~e attempts to kill him [Peroff].
Etatue.-On March 11, the case w4 s rqmoved t ee
Court for the District of Columbia. The. case is pe] *n nht'ut
Common Cause v. Bailar
Civil Action No. 1887-73 (D.D.,C.)
Brief.--Origin ally filed on October 5, 1973, thisato ek'elr atory and injunctive relief against Postmasterand Secretary of the Treasury William E. Simo oatoste Allegedly performed or failed to performn in theo-~ thip~a duties, relating to the cnressional frankrng privis
Plaintiffs, common ause- and John W.
ne] rnr
C o u n n ........................... . ..r.............................................
folwn h''tateto h rakn c f173[u 1
onDcme 8 93 o no" ie:ihecstti'I6'~~f;
... i tiffsiiiiii~ii ale et a h s 'o h"fai o n -geis dh w reeaesbya emero Cnges-teiaianiatiif onifatb o
election........r.............. f n r ii g f rac n i a y P kh 1 -i
fran on mn i ]Rm atte uha odlne, omho trs

,~~~~hs ,6 ia ................ '...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~. ......... tow...........iii,,ii
Postmasteri~iiii!iiiii Geirlssauoy4t n 15 ii.tnafTd~ire
.......... ................................. t t4 rY d t e .o t e S c f t
4iiiiii!N ~iiiii o f .......... ..........................ur y -, i ,
O niiii M dY ................ ............. OrttID I SM 18
i ........ iiiiiiiii i~iiiiiiiiii iiiiii~ii~ i ~ ~ ii ~ ~ i iii ~ ii'nii
withsuportig mmoradumasseti

The court Isoks jurisdiction over the, subject matter of this action in that neither of the above-named defendants are properparties to this proceeding, the plaintiffs have failed to exhaust, _the administrative remedies available to them, the plaintiffslack standing to maintain this action, and that the complaint -fails to state a: claim-upon which relief may be
granted. [Defendants' motion to dismiss, May 31, 1974]
June 14,.-1974, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to
-the defendwits' r4otion to dismiss as well as an application to convene i'th Aid'& dls tkict court. On June 26, 1974, U.S. District Court itid0: I&ni Tf. Pmttldenied Without opinion defendants' motion to dismiss. Gd luly'i, 1974, Judgo, Pratt signed an order conveniniy the threeJud "' dist. d court requested by th plaintiffs. A week later, on C 974"Ahe defendants. filedtheir Answer to the. Amended
Smce'S*ember 9 1974, Olaintiff! have attempted to depose and serve s4bpoonas duces tecum on numerous individuals, a partial list of Ail h follows Victor- C. Smiroldo, Staff Director of the House Commission on, -Congressional Mailing Standards; Benjamin R. Fern,Chief .C&4njwl' of, the Senate Select Committee -on Standards and Conduct; D" Raintage, House MaJority Clerk;, Thomas J. Lankford, .House Mmority, Clerk; -Joseph J. Fahey,. Supervisor of the Senate F,61ding',.Room Edmund I& ]Renshaw, then AssistantSergeant at Arms of the, Hotse; John.M. Swanner, Staff Director of the House Committee on' Standards of Official Conduct; Eli Bjellos, Chief of the Houge Pubfications Distribution Service; Harold Needham, Superintendent of, the,80-nate Services Department; James Estop, Manager of the Senate Computev Center Buehl Berentson, Executive Director qf tbpNational. Republican Senatorial Committee; BillQoodwin of tB6 Xational'Repiiblican Senatorial Committee; Lee MacGregor, former Aide, to Senator Robert Griffin; Joyce Baker, a former employ66 6f] the Senate' Republican Policy Committee; Richard Conlon, Staff, Dirktot of the House Democratic Stud Group; Lynda E. Clanz,.RiohAird P. Cliftoni and Glee Gomien, Ftaff Assistants of the Repu ican Senatorial Campaign Committee; Jay Bryant, Special Assistant in the. Office of the Minority Whip I dward L. Beach, SWI)irwtor and *%-cretaryof the Senate Republican Policy ComInAt4e 44 Senate Republican Conference; Edwin F. Feulner, Execu., t4yo Piwtor of. -the 14ouse ]Republican Study Committee; Patricia GaIdwaix, Director of the Wednesday Group and Jay D.: Sterling, Exekutive Director of the House Republican Research Committee. JJ)n OpItober 97 1974,,the Senate. passed S. Res. 423 regarding Mr. lVern, and m October 11, 1974,: passed S. Res. 431 regarding Messrs.r I.E.84p, Needham and Fahe-y. The rescdutions staW that by the privi Iq". of, the Senate no evidence of a documentary ebaracter under Oo ontrol and in the possessionof the Senate, can be taken without its permission by the m&ndate of processof 0 miuy courts of justice; thso -am GmWoyees were authorized to appear before the court but not to t*e. vith them any:,papers or documents -on file in their offices or
possession; and -that when the cowd determined that any of tho **ewwd. &cumentgAind papershad become part of the official bwwriptat. ,*f public prowdings of the Senate, and that they were material to the case, the court could receive copies of the documents.

On Noverhber 22 1974 a imilarly wored Sd..Resi.486 was panded regarding JoyocBe r i
The subpoena o8 abue aiployees Bjellos: <8wannw, 8 14olo, Ramage, and Lahhtord were presented, by, thel8phakad. to, he Huse for its consideration en *September 8%,. 1074, Whdn.thi employees failed to appoe for their depesitions, plaintiffs filed motions. to: compel their testitanfj.
,On October 21, 1974, two of the subpoenaed. employees, Elipjellos and ,John S anner,, wrote a letter~to Judg(3 Pratt after receiving a copy of the motion iled by the plaintai fs to compel their testimony. Each informed Judge Pratt of his view that both by sfatute and 1by the custom ,of the H)ouse, they were forbidden to testify or t6 remove documents belgagigg to the House -without the Permission of the House. 'The letters also informed Judge Pratt that the question of the ,subpoenas was under active consideration by the House and that.fhe, two men were terefore awai ting fter.g guidance from the lHouse on the course of action they shonld follow
-, On December 18, 1974, the Honse adopted 1-. Res. 1517 which was similar to the. Senate Rtesolution, except tat it resolved that:
Wheatit appears bythe order of the court ot of the judge
thereof, or of any lgloficericharged with the administration of the orders ofsch court or jadge, that documentary evidence in the possession and adider the control of the House is needful for ueeiinay court of justie dr before any jAudge or such legal, ofiert, for the promotion of justice,, this Hoe will take suek action thereon as will promote the ends "of justiceneensistently with the, privileges and rights -of the
House. [H.Rek. 1517,93d Cong. 2d Sess. (1974)]
On, January 23,,1975,tie House again took uigi the mater of the. suilpoenias in H.Res. 8, which observed that:
large vriety and volume of ths .materials..sought. by plaintiffs form the five House employees] do not appear to: bear any essentialrelationship to the causes of action and re-.
lief requested in the plaintiffs amended complaint *[H.
Res...85, 94th (1975)].
The resoluin alsostated that, consistent with its privileges, the House woud at o nu rmte the ends of justice*** upon -:determinatiorr of rlvncy by the- court," knd it aulthodnAAd the
Spaker to ap oin onsel to, represent the House and its employees mn the proceds ,
OnR Jnae 27975, oral argument was he14 on-av a Ieee'in tion
to dishii whichd been submitted by the defendantd.4 'Ti motion raised the sameds 4ments thfit had been rinds in defenants' first thdtion'to dismss dnd made the additiotil allegtion: ifa8linif liad failed to jona indispensble pari-the ogs&-;vatrd by Rule 19 of ih eeral Rlsof Oivil Proeedure.
.Also discussed athe beginning of the January 2St ari wa's I 18 a;bpoenag whic a ineif had issued. Counsel' @or e lai lin aswering an inquiry reading the mass: ofimateditlbi~ so~ stated that although the elitilnge was -on thbe oitionalti ty ih franking laws on their face, the discovery was necessary: to show that

the statute was designed for and being used 'for political' purposes. The court suggested that perhaps the volume of material: sought 'could be reduced, ptobably through stipulation between counsel, since the ultimate argument seemed to be on constitutional issues in which the facts inv'olved would be rather undisputed. The court directed plaintiff to submit ah itemized list of the documents it was seeking 'Within 10 days after it ruled on. the motion to dismiss, if its ruling was a denial of the motion.
By a Memorandum and Order of February 10, W51: the court denied the defendant& renewed motion to dismiss. 'In rej 6ding the defendants':: argument that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, the court wrote:
The claim that -plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies in failing to ifile complaints cone: erring violations of the statute with the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards or theSelect Committ ee on Standards and Conduct of the Senate has no merit. Plaintiffs make no contention that there have been abuses or violations eof the statute coiasidera4on of which are. in the sole, j urisdiction of the Wouse Commission or the Senate Committee, but rather that the statute on its face iis unconstitutional,, a matter beyonq t e jurisdiction of suchbodies. Obviously, the House Commission and Senate Committee have no power to declare an actof Congress unconstitutional. It is well settled that the doctrine of &xhaustion does not -apply where, the administrative process is inadequate to dispose of the Con'stitutionial claim. Aircraft &:Di68el Corp. v. HirscA, 331 U., .752 (1947).
[Comlnz,6 Cause v. Klas8en, Civil Action No. 1,887-73.
(D.D.C. 1975) ;SlipOpinion at 2; see complete text in "Decisions" section of Court Proceedings and Actions of VitaZ
Interest to the Conaress, April 15, 19751.
Ini -addition, the court said, the Congress or the membership of Congrbas are not indispensable parties and though defendants' t'hird allegation-that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue--w as more serious and required further exploration, it too, was without merit:
Plaointiffs sue as taxpayers with a taxable in-come ''of over $6 billion annually and federal tax liability in excess of $1 billion eachyear. They assert that federal funds -appropriated under thefranking privilege are being used to finance the distribution'of partisan olificalliterature specifically authorized, y Section 321'0 M that such expenditures of -federal -funds w. olate thelimitations upon the taxing and ending power of Cbngress under Akicie 1, Section'8 and contravehe the First
..and Fifth Arnendments of the Constitution.
Just As i PoAa tl' I *ntiffs cl staius
In n y, p ai, aim as registered
representatives of registered voters, candidates for
co ssioaal office, and' supporters of candidates. R is al4ZIT]hat over fifty meinbers of Common I -Causechallenze d -imunilbent members of Congress in the last election, i nd Many. of. itsmembers supported challen rs tolnetkmbents.
'They asstnt:that the present franking privilege confers sub-


I' Ii ical b ,nefitg upon inciutxd)anto,..,,whiJe.asnineum
e& ch ngersand their supl ortchrs4o:not4mve 4e Fame,
advantage.:, Ass resul4 thd rigW, ch*11 3agtw and. thair.
supportersi to: -freely ociate or; Wli" .purpoqe s Hire IM-.
paired, and the value:of their- votes is, diluted anddiwin i 4, -all in violation of the First Amendm4mt. Baker v,, Carrl
[Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) j a
In additioo, it: is Ileged that this practice invidiously discriminates, in Uvor
of incumbent members i violation of fhe. due: pmaoss
_Of the: Fifth Ainendment, ln.,short,.as citizells,:wuh 4 P07 Ji
.ticularized interest inth6 elect-oral Process,-Plaintifts, claim standing to attack Section 3210, asviolative, of their:con
stitutional rights.
From the foregom*g brief discvssi on it i clear to us ihat
the plaintiffs have -met the test laid in Fldgt [Plat V.
eohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) ] and sUbseque it ames.. They. have asserted (1) aninjury infa6lt not a gvh6ralized complaint common toall citizens and taxpayprs, and the have de'monstrat.ed (2) a nexus between tht'inj urits suiered:a'nd the
constitutional infringements all 1, p8jj 0 inio ai
On February 21,:1975, plaintiff submitted. I its %exnized, Ust of Documents Subpoeniaed from House,, Employe es-." FrQm Victor
8,iniroldo, Staff Director and Caunsel of th,,e,- Houise 'k 'wwission on Congressional Mailing 'Standards, and John X. Swanneri.. Staff Director of. the;House Committee on Standards of Offichil Couduct, plaihtiff songht:
coinplaints cone'erning possi" ble violation -t)f tl e
,franking Etatute.'and attaehments tht reto, or copies there'd.
ibr6itght to the attention of the, Com"Missio'n' sQ'all,,me o-, randa:, or other writings or: copies thereof *bieh: refat i to
or reflect the disposition of these complaints[;]:
all advisory opinions aiqd attachments thOW0,:ior.
opies thereof, 'wh h relate to tbe: mailing i or contenaplaied
mailing of'; franked. mail, issued to any: Me"n1bor of the Hou
of Representatives or Member-elect, surviving SPOI-W 0. f an 1),
0 Y
of the, foregoing persons, ar.,Other ouse pfRepresentafivos
officials eir agents or,,eniploy6Bs
-all lett0s, roemo J-davor'O'ther writings,,, and attiachments -thereto ot, copi es t h"ereof which. relate to or 'refl
Infoiniation, guidance, -assistance aa,6ce or ciounsel'giv'e)a in ConnectIbn 'With, the mail a ing or conte'mOaLtod.' ron 11111Z of
fra, nked mail
-all formal or infor'Wal cor d 0' or twop ies
thereof received by the Commission requestinti.:inf tioll
guidance, a sistance, adviceor counsel An eltkih: w1ith: the
mailin or contemplated mailing Of franked Mwiq ;j
all informal opinion4 a'A4,attaCh;nents t ereto., 6r
copies thereof', issued by the CommiggioTk tonceffiin4,iise of
,tbe franking privilege[; andl
all regulations or Proposed' regll' AtiOns br entriess
thereof, govermng the proper use.:4 the'pfri4 g ri 'it

e of W resent. es Memberby;Any-3 tiv or
14mbor of, the, 1111 Qps vp
spottse of, any Ot he forogoih L or. other e1vC4 1$urviviog I 9-Y
House: of a, vresentAtives, entitled to send -i ail' A's
runkedorw yee, or, Wpt of any and all of the fore-.
going, jwsan 11teraized. list ofdocurAents su poenaed.from
rem -Fy 10 10 afte
ployea.014 filed Fe rua 11... wein

P O a Nvla Tkinage, and- Thomas- Lank-ford, respectivlAY:. 410, M jbtlty Olid: Mihoiity Clerks of tho House of Representatives
1. d, is ,n spon enc6 -men
X, ,,:cqrre wranda v ork
er.,v Or.,coples there-bf. vhkh'reflO t
to thq,,.,pr n,,Agi r o of: ongTessiona:
neyv ttp s or news ses V th6 -House Majority Room
jrom., _)p4ember .31, 10q3-: thro-Ligh the date of this sub;a
all, documents, correEwnaence., memorandit, -and
or copies thereof, including butlipt limited: boo*, reoor or receipts, which relate to or reflect a bill
or payment for. servicess. Providect by f6 TIOUse Maj"ority'
Room in preparing, ngressiona
printing or Co I newsletters or
news rekases-& I 'deid:.between Deedmber 3. 1973 and-the date
ot,_thlk"inbi*. -A.. C1 ized TAStj
Frrnq Piell* C ef. of t he-Hpu'S6 Publ'catfons Distribution
all! documents Correspo!idenco,,MerooraiRdaI Nvork
shiAiA4 andother:,writings,-.e':,copies ti; I wlxieh reflect -or re1tfttothe4nonth1,.Ywprk units of the.Publi6otions: Distributidnleeetiw. fro, M1. J8aU&rY., 41W thr=gh the date qf, t4is,
11 iidacuments,_ !correpondeaice, 'maemorauda, an d
othor- writinMor- eopie likereef, inrludin Jbvut not limited
to, 66bbsy Te6ords late
--or receipts, which ixe loo, or reflect, a bill f6r services proffided by the,, Publiatioxis Dis-AService fDr the., period 1rom; December 1, 1973 to
the date of this subpoena[; and]
4' k-,r&Hr documents cdrrespondmc*. memoranda, and
otha-r which relate, to or reflect the
rAUrfnft tf er, handling of mass k Unile d. matte r, including but aet lirnft*d tolnArwdors on, the1andfing ofconeres_.
he period f roin Decomber 1 1973, to: thty dwta sof, this subpoena. [Itemized List] i
piainON I hi d 'Al s6, 66 s6ight'd' ,i& xits., fi .''certain: Senate
and when the .mpjoy es, pursuant to the instruqtions'6f1 the Senate failed f& vib& 6. &6-fi 1 'htiff fited a: motion to compel the Production 4661nient Oj Xaf IT '105 .Senate employees Fern,
NeAldfi 4ii ilw _Vke filW fil0iii0t h& in oppo i6on W plaintiff's m 92.
otid 6 -pirodii'ce d6comentfsstating thatthe records
19011 a ei I' the sifbjert'rnatte cvf'the pendina lifigahl h"Vf 44't the' ftan ong s is. utcohst
tiom i k6 statute itntionid on it,8 face,
an eo* 10 11 ht lnv6j e -us of the, fiank in specific instances
(A . ....

privilgd htteueo h eaeflmgro fdt~ r part o h a n loacso Mmeso ogm s%
lawye-letpiiee p e.LtrtetreSnU ml l supply
in EatadvUntdSaeR8rwwRFud.4 Us49(17)

tiff'smointcopltsioya. dhepouto' dcmnsI.

the frnigat h nomto spiiee 1o rd'ico sure udrteSec rDbt lueo h~~siuin n'h subpoea eenelsl udnoe
of docmnswsage

Obetos oti tepe isoeyaeprsd ntrs
of()irlvne()bresians n 3.aitttga

imuiyudrAtce1 etin6(h Sec n Dbt
clue rAtce1 eto 5(oe fec oyo ogrs oeatit w ue)
Th li flc frlvne speiae ntenro

to ahieve tis rsultwi o empulyeesmpen are notlpresenty fcedwih ay o thseproblems since these employees ed submit voluntarily informationresectng he se ffrnked' mail broken down: as to (1)catgoresof anresioal membership to compare frequeny. nd olum offrakedmail as it varies between memersdifllties to be facedat primary ,orat letio, 2) oucesofpayment for materials mailed, iterpretive materials, inchiding but ot imied oavisry pmnions and more informal adOic. W comen ths efor of House defendants' counsel andurg conse fo plintffa to consider and determine the a~eqacyof uchproosa an,.if unable to agree with House emp yee' cunsl, o b prpared to demonstrate the need
e th Ibse~eploee, .the Seate -employees have
made4o, oye o suply ny1oth requested materials. Being satsfid's t Plaitifs'enilement to substantial discovery, we ~rinreuietha cunel for Senate employees confer wit P~~itifs'couse inaneffort to work out an accommodatin aong h 'ener-I ine of the propeal made on behalf of he oweeip~yes.[Mmorandupm and Order,:Oommon
awe~ ~ ~ ~ v.ii cinNo. 1877-48 (D.O.. 1975); Slip 0at 3-4;thisreprt at 205-207.
The cur& rante plantf'motion to compel discovery from the Senae an Houe emloyes,'it being understood that the exact ... ia to. be produced are left to further
OnMachi, 97,th~cut sse an ore prving a stipulatio bewee painiffandSea employees Estep and Needham, and a stpultio beteenHoue eployees Ramage, Lankford, Bjellos
Thes~uatin rgaringEsep, Manager of the Senate Computer Cen* PO Nedham. Sperntmdent of the Senate Services DepartInet sate, hatplantffswer t receive a User's Guide for the Senate CompterCe r ant adesripion of the computer programs used; a cmpiatin o th wok odes from Senators designating the categores f icliidalsho.aretoreceive franked mail, the work-order iriubef, ad wek teref -a cmpilation detailing the categories of name man~iedby he enae Computer Center for each Senator, thi'iumei o naes i eah ctegory, and the code designation of giii& $te 0 'he nmbe address labels. ffixed to franked mail fbk'eikh Sjia~r 6rec ay r, week; and the right to inspect copies 16 ,f~ileter'sin he, osssson of the. Senate: Service Department.
ftled that Estep and Needham would
a it~n~l a rI e~ve oder was issued defining: (1) the-in-me f mil for'each Senator that may be pub6 9i-7 0 6 7 6iii iiiiiiiiii4 ,iiiii 'ii?,:,iii ~ iiii~ ,iiiiiii~iiiii iiiiiii .......i~ ~~~iiiii ii~i7iii~iiiiii~ ii i

& I&

lically filed; and (2) the informaation that is to. be sivailable ta pkintiff's counsel under which'seal may be.publielyfiled,14 thisiad&iw The Senate employees wiUbe -given a listof all Sarmtorf; with certainAiharacteristics of the State each represents, votinff percentage in elections .on redection,, ct
since 19W, information Be thecouhtryjand other
general information. The Senate employees will thensubstitu U,,,% code for the name of each Senator, the key', to which -will be, kept: V*A oaowra and not made available to: plaintiffs. or defendantwortheir ,coansel or anyone else.. If a party, needs the Iinformation Ie.znust: first, Serve notice on the Senate employees' counseL Finiffly, aJ.1 doeumepts songht by plaintiff from others will firstbe submitted to. the court and the code will, be substituted for the Senators, name, deponents and, mitnesses, will use only the code, and. plaintiff will -refer to individual Senators only by their code,
As for Senate employee Fem, Ch ief Counsel, of the-Senate Select Comijaittee on:Standards and Conduct, the courtTstated
Plaintiffs seek* production of thofb11oW3'A'g mitern''al doc"
uments, -of the Senate Select' Committide'. bn -sta, ndiMs an;l
(A) The- actual text of (a) %T1 Complaints tothe
Select Committee corning thev use Of the frank''by', Members of the Senate and the'dispo'sition ther ofl.
(b), all written requests from: Memj)ers..of ithe SehAti:: tothe Select Committee for. advice concerni the use: of: the, fmhk and the written res th i 't
ponses e m. -o
and (e), d1oporient. 'Fern's notesor- oth6r m*noii Aa zoncerniAg oral requests for advice and oiil rer sponses, or, in, lieu of the actual text of 66 documents, a'summary ,of emh document with, me.
document, mada #.vailable, to plaintiffsll counsel 46.(
verify the accuraeyof the summaries,-,and
(B) All, internkl memoranda of the ComnA .
concermng the use. of the frank whieh ht ve beeii.
approved by the -Select Committke or insiedim the
basis for rendering advice to Members of: the
Actual text was defined by plaintiffs' counsel as a copy cif
the full text of the document. or the originaUdeenment lf with only the identification of the Senator deWed,., f0r& f,
C&nm-on Caum v. Bailar, Civil Action No, 188743,
March 1, 1976) [hereinafter "Order"); Slip:Opfiii6n a
this report at 208-20.)
The court, noted, that affer the Select, Coihipiti'ee hi eddqO xwt to allow Mr. Fern to, produce the documents, the Senate on, Vecerob r 171 1975) had adopted a resolution reaffirming a previops enate rgs oltition prohibiting the diselosure of'. the inte'rital records oftheSelect Committee. On January 27,4976, the Sele&'Cornxni tee laad M'
considered the matter and deter'nuffiedtliat under' c'trde r of gie Sen e it could make no change in its position. Fe d,61Texp4d, 4UPP.
summaries of douctnents in list -(A-) above, but P1' tillm, upon inspection of the actual records to =461 th 6'. aceF;wy, 0 1 e summaries and the. Select Committee had ifed pv At
court went:on-

P'fftiw I, i Cocedd tat hedcurents themselves are rele-, vapto ho isue i tiscae.'Whther the documen ts are 11rether they relbte to 'the buanle-O of enaorsor he usies of candidates for the $euat. T~ al~roachs a.capslescription of ,the, ultiate~isue n tis se We'Ca'agee that a privilege for 'Seiiitoriil doc exists withu deciding that thesee
do 4inets re epapril ad tereore privileged.
this stge~n te~lasui we thnk it ,better to act as if ta privileged, with the
a yliait6 669on reserved., Insp plaintiffs' counsel,
eyea with'al safeiii would in -some sense defeat the
-prvilgeif n ltiml~to anl documents were found to~b~prpery etited~ potetio.: However, there is no 494b, ht'te. pivieieclaiedif t exists, is not absolute
binli C4 'aibl'uo'n, sowigofproper, need,. As the re, COAMA rate xpeenc has taghtus, a President's. claim 6 T A' b'te rivleg onthegrondsof confidentiality must viel whn aproer howng Mde that the overriding conidraton ofth' tblo, i~t~r~trequife disclosure. The bod t~tmel uel, aeu~mintio -i the Judiciary after an in.Vavm -nspctift:of he atrial. United States v.
it s or jdgmnt hatplantifshave up to thisp~oint faild t dmomrat th shwin ofparticuilar need to overE riiege. It may We1l
be hatthesumaris temslve pus'additibnal disco-vbry inpher ras illaaigf th pttitifs' evidentiary problem and~~~~~~~~~ *rlMk tsneesr o i order at this time the P4 ducion6fthedoeun-engithomelves.;OnI the other, hand, we se n resonwhy Mr.Fer,8hulI not be required also to Bu~l~yi snanaresof"al iner aneoranda" described, in subpragitp, ) aove It s uidestood that the -entire file
OM MI~doutnett .............. li ie n io.Aca dn,i iiiiiii

ig by the,,Conrt ,

code for *a Member's name. The informationwill then be compiled and coordinated with coded numbersand a coded list of the at#ibutes of' the Member similar to those of the Senate, with similar access and protections. Plaintiff will also receivrefrom Mr. Smiroldoof the House, Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards, at plaintiffs' expense'.
copies of all doeumbnts and other' writings perta g to all formal complaint proceedings, pending'or completed. In addition, Plaintiffs will receive copies of all documents in the files of the Commission.that ei bpdy (a') formal'or informal advice rendered by the Commission and/or its: staff to Mem'" 1An ev
bers of Congress regarding their use. of the Privilege; or (b) policy statementsor regulations of gene al applicability adopted by the Commission regarding- permissible uses of the:franiking privilege bX *embers of Congress or (c) communications of the, Commission or its staff with third parties outside the House of Representatives that relate to the franldng privilege, The only omissions from thm materials will be such details as identify a particular
This voluntarily offered material includes:
a. Correspondence and other communications from the Commission to Members of Congress or their staffs, advising a Member with respect to the frankability of a proposed

b. orrespondence and other communications from Members of the House Commission staff. to Members of Congress
or their staffs that provide such advice.
c. Correspondence, and other commumeations relating to the
fr. _rJA-91g privilege, between, on the one hand, the Hous6 Comamission or its staff and, on the other hand, individuals other
than Members of Congress or their. staff.
d. Internal staff memoranda addressed to the Commission
in cases where staff memoranda have been ado ted by the Commission as the basis, for its final actio n in L rendiering
advice on the frankability of a proposed mailing, or (pii
adopting policies or regulations of general application wA respect to permissible uses of the, frankin-or-privilege by Mem. [Stipulation a4d
bers of Congress. Proteetive Order Regard.
ing Production of Information and Documents By Certain Employees of the House of Representatives,: Common Cauge v. Badar Civil Action No. 1887-73 (D.D.C. March, 1 IW6) (hereina&r "Stipulation"); Slip Opinion at 54; 'report at 216-217.]
F urthermore, still a different code will be used in plam of Members,10
names in this compilation than in the previous on.6, and it was .
specifically understood and agreed that Mr. Smiroldo will Tiot provide Plaintiffs with information or accem:10 6ther materials consisting of (a) internal I memoranda that were not adopted. b the Commission as the basis foradvice or pol qy decisions G, the Staff or the ComMission,(bl requests f6r advice by members, except as otherwise provided for above,


and (c) either the identity or the cod number for the members involved. FStipulation; Shp Opinion at 6; this report
at 215.i
Fin,%lly, the. court's order stated that with respect to subpoenas
-,issued by pl.iLintiff on F bruaSr 19761 fo the administrative assistS. Y which commanded each one to
ants.or aides of all.100' senator,
'bring with him "all documents, correspondence, memoranda, and other -writings or copies thereoflwhich r'elate to or reveal the types of lists,
codes,' or groupings of names maintained for mailing purposes in the Senate computer since December 18, 1973," in conjunction with each 'one bei-nig deposed at 15 minute intervals from February 18 to .-23119761 it was understood that counsel were trying to work out a solution including the directing of one subpoena, to a single staff member who would I represent all 100 Senators in the -furnishing of document.% anonymously, and it ordered the proposed procedure as approved with
-the court to be advised of the precise procedure agreed upon.
On March 9, 1976, the House passed H. Res. 1082 giving its consent
-to the House employees to furnish 'the documents requested in tha
-stipulation., I
The Senate passed S. Res. 411 on March 26, 1976, which authorized
-tbe. preparation of a list showing the codes used by each Senator on Work orders for mailings sent under the frank, and authorizing employees. to.Jurnish, the mailing of such codes.
On April, 7, 1976 the 100 administrative assistants moved for a
-protective, order from the court limiting the scope of discovery to the
-terms of S. Res. 411.
Status.-The case is pending before the three-judge court in the
TT.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The fu11 text of the courts "Memorandum and Order" of July 30,
-1976, the "Stipulation and Protective Order Regarding Production -of Information and Documents By Certain Employees of the House of Representatives," filed on March 1 1976 and the Order" of the -court filed on March 1 1976, are printed in the "Decisions" section of
this report begmin M*g at 205, infra,
The:full text of the memorandum and order of February 10, 1975,
-was printed in the "Decisions" section of the report of Court Proeeed-.iAg,& and Actions of Vital Interest to the Congress, April 15, 1975.
Abourezk x. Federal Energy Administration
Civil'Ac, tim No. 74-1624 (D.D.C.)
-Senator James Ab rezk filed this action in the U.S. Distript Court for the District of Columbia on November 7 1974 seeking coppliance by defendants with provisions of the Emergency PetroAllocation Act of 1973 TL. No."93-15,91 87 Stat 627] and
tRergy Sa
pply and E.Ayironmental :Coordination 1 t of 1974 Epq ,.L,, No. 93-319 88 Stat. 246], requirifiLy the compilation and pub
,f:certain in ormw,
licatiqiR P Ltionre 'd* enera
A gar ing
amed, as defendanis:':wpire: the Federal Energy Admi istration
FEA) nd FEA'
a' 8-4milqlstratoi Johii Sawhill.
4: Jei bou zk: conteA4 d that the failure of
t'. 'ene gy.,reportiLng,,reqiureme'lats of these acts

has imed "plaintiffs legislativf 1un hptionl ap thdiag istgrmation of vital importance to form lawmaking in this critical area of
national concern."
.In statement released the day follow ag ihe'fihag' of hik ition,. SentorAboureak described the lands of idfowaation FEA had failed to spl the meludgg reportss and information on
ptoeum mrke shares, domiestic reserves,- production, imports-.and mnventories of crude oil, residual'fuel' oil,. eperlm oit,
natural gas adoal."
S tites.-The parties entered into -a stipulation on March 17, 1974,. and the ation. was dismissed by the court.
Pursunt to the stipulation, the FEA, while continuing to rejet Senator Abbutedk~ contention -that. it had failed to~comply with the prbvidions o4f the Act, agreed that: t wonid: "continue t6 sobmit, to.O Congress" all required reports.,
Calle fmann (Formerly Callnway) ...
Ciil AcinN. 75,773. (U.Si .Supreme Court),
Brif.- hishaeas corpy4Iaction, untiated -on Februr 1. 1t
1y pettoe Wiliam L. Calley, Jr., challenged the aosi inlity
of his March 21, 1971, conviction. for murder and askbd lhah be dIschaare from cupstody. .Petitioner as a spsult of hip parlt iin oiin,mffiayoperatios in. Mly Lai, Suth Vietnam, on, Marcih it- 1968. was foud guilty by .an Army general court-mnartial of prmdtiated' murde 'r and assault with intent to commit murder. On Verirv 16, 19t3, the ourt of Milita-y Rfeview affirnibd the'eonviction. The Court of Military ,Appeals, granted a limited review and on Decembdr 21. 1973, 0riid the petitioner's conviction in--a split decisioniM,
Ii i i dic-a

Haviz ehiated hris appeals provided in the military judidal systetiti oe rougt this actis ale,1ifhi a number of violations of'
bI costittional" rgts. Three of his -cnstitutionat arguments were considered by the cout: te
(1) Denial of a fair and impartial trial because of massive
adverse pre-trial publicity;
(2) Denial of the right of confrontation of witnesses and4
denial of compulsory process for obtaining favorable Wit
nesses; and
(3) Denial of due process by being convicted on charges
and specification which were improperly drWn aI illgal
used by the prosecution.
Of.... these....... thre ponscniee ytecutte'su etiig
to igto cofotto of witnesses Md thei ri ht to obtain."iiii~ 'iii']ii'w "i'' ...l Ni ,m .........

f a v ........... ........ ..i.......................C o................ ......... .
S e r i e s= C o mm.............................. ite e!!il~il .. ..... .. ... .. .... su p n p ........................... '.. ......n fo r m a t i
s o u g h t f r o.m..............s.u...h................................................................. i ...... ...........n
o f a .. ... . . ... ... .. ....... ..... . .. .. .. ... .. . .... ..... ...... ............ . .. . .. .... . .. ... ........... . ..... ....... ............ ........................ ..... ......... ................ .... ...............................................................................
y lol!,r~
C m i e ................... th e ..o.................... ini.4

A s .a.p. rt.o....e.C.m m ittee 's......................................W er
cle wh laeaperdath Dntmri l .......... f0', he


prosecution. Pectitione 'isuant to the p s of Title 18 V.S.C.
350Q (TJ e, qnck, ruling of.,Rrady Y. Marylavd 3,73 U.S.
83 (1963)1, ii _d a',mo ion for discovery to obtain'the transcript of the te tj' the witnesses: before the Committee in July of 1970.
The. n4lit a ri "i 'f und that -the testimony soughfb' petit I loner was relevant.ancLamportant to the case and o rdered the trial counsel to serve a, s poena 0 t ai such, info ation.
u-b i ducei'teoum n Congress' o obt in rM
The subpoena was not acted on by the Congress although the following,1 44q,,7qs, transmitted by CQngressman Wbc-rt. to trial
IThis is iti: res.ponse., U your, letter dated July 16th- asking the
-porsiti6hoffhe Subcommittee relative to the defense request 'for -disebvery of, testimiony idence and released heariMg, report resulting fi our investigafionof tho My Lai
you know, the. Constitution created t-heCongress. as an
ent. brqnch of the government, separated from and
16" fl 6 lel ecutive and jud ciilbr=iehos. As a separate '6n! ongress
n6 Wik'our Wief tha) y the.c, candirect
si "e, o gisla-tive recor4s., Therefore, it is our poL4 S be itt' e 'doe, ents de amded
3 M u omm Um
W VA.40.*.Q counsel -are not withiia the purview:of the, hold09 sa Me
Pyl"d7-373 U.S. 83 (1963). For the, Ason veltliek'e thaf t6se-'documents.. are not subject f)(1-i 'P);e xNuirements of is U.S.C. 3500. Accordingly, the,
Of pie4t demanded, by. defense counsel will, not be made
Chmrmanify Lai Incident Subcommittee.
-!A Z;i Septclmbur: 1970, after recei v ing ChRirman Mbort's correspond-0*e*,, Petitioner renewpd his dememd for discave'ry of the testimony given before the subcommittee and thereafter served a new subpoena
Feb ry 19,71 to which the Congress again did not
". TheCoud of Militar Review, m reviewing the decision of the
Ar*-judg&;,held theit' the Jencks Act was inapplicable -to the testimony given before the House Armed Services Committee reasoning Amb-the.*ords "United, States" as used in the Act did not include the Congress. The court further held that the doctrine of -,separation of qiowers zeetaskrif dictated that the Jencks Act'did not apply to Conf9rTM.1 and Ahat evenAf their, reascming was erroneous there was no ipnjhdi(r_:AS.S restiltof the military judge's. failure to strike the testiwmy, of I -numerous pr6secution witnesses in spite of the dictates of
-66AA"T'he.Couet. of Mffita ry Appeals: did not consiaer the, question. ,fj iJ.*.Jddde- Robert Elliott,: writii*'for the district court, examined the scope of the application of the encks Act and held the. trial court and ffieqwrt;pf ary Review to e inerror in, not making the
Act ner.-Accordingly, t' 'udgeconcluded "the
reNw, 1P. )i* Oo]_U=Ott to honor the court's subpoena reSU14,'041i, Lepu']R'p rew'onofeviodft'cematfrialtoC ley'sdefenseand
.. 0'. If .0
depfivie'd'him of aue process, ma ing his. conviction constitutionally invalid." Walley v. CaPaway, 382 F. Supp. 650, 708, (1974).]

(b) Afse a rtnes corlld byg the'ntdSao 4 1 iedon re To amsupp ort th coe hl, n i-o,6 h defndatre the JeckiAte totongest rdc ays n ho the maytbe conflit inssg' th h:VxtdSt
thechres o one powet invole o Ate
ress to prthec Uitsd lSate prcsnttocml
tCalles hadio not, been acorded
-aTial thatr his nvcon ases191 apynthe asenitle At the Cre hee h mlt bs y e curiets ofwpeal irmngritsdecisior ortec 'qdr
stric ou rt.a ecnlc n h'eaain f oerslcnet

whestf apasut held tht te fa:acdaantte rveo h defense adocum tentSufrmeCutshligo y2414,n thesuc

effeRa of denin tletin tof the Jefenke. Eeny if tohreo
privileHi4i et weargrpel noed athe eaimoay queidly*
d thewiehho uiroftemat.ea mihrqe -thei
Govrnmnttotto petisthoe tsifn dihte was dieei
de~e.(e 6ti t: isdeee 7 rith withats v.iRed.state,
As to tedefen ed eton tari 5,e 19lreo6.restofrns mate~~~aldt toth thens wsavoain to thpelncs oAitio dhbcussinf appals dpermndthto tdiCoted as xcred tati qursine:ih
by~~~~ onaigteJn Pct sueeits on Aies and rofridsn
to:t6Acts dsclsDe-ei ents 1, 195,atroger ise.

whether theDecember 2o 1974iin the teT.&on cetdadisrct
of~ ~< cosittqalmgiudeia,t corns-certaialloeedillgal
Status.Apetiinowteligecertagnc icudn the predurtaes. erpem actiitie ofs theie Agnc arei reiee and6 The o taporift e cor tof theal lainio Represniv the ssus o inereti the limites impsxped lawd pribteinte "Dedsio"ica scinoCoratrcins and ometicn ontelien terest.~t ovteCogesDcmerght1committepes ofCoges3 hv exercngtse any relCotrlovrCIbpea

ourtfor he Dstr t 'Clmiaonceannglesstain pactgeieal "Vlt"*~~~ covh enrlItelzert perationcrodinng thecdes
by whih theeandone andvtiso thertwarin Laos, attieest tod htion ofth Congressioaepniiiyb

operate prssing need fT moe ay reassertinofiappliforeiin,>n oner pltcA operations. [Prdoess Rneleasenof
r."tedly~~ fie exec1s an ra coto ov1 r CI opra

his rghav on cuortie a< dhs uhrt i rd n'Oefl re ate actvites vrile S ecin2-ly e&a d'r~c stttion, whofich Costt i th osdr' it e Ioto

Harinon pctends the gnysatvtisadesrlt U.S.C. suc 40f(apreciptsaeoee. an 31us.C, 7 11, 628,siutot osieiiiae upr Aphcato of mny api ud pitios by teAgencs.

Te in"alcivuis esld fd cacltctoafetoiamua pta he lCetrl Inl ic rsca eeonesi olll on

direced O. citizens; 'Current apptropriatibn and fading pro cedres. filue to publish in the itederal IRegister nonintelligenc relaed ~spctsand domestic police-Internal sectriity operations; and
_dtheAgency and Department of Treasury identify ate cifcaly he emi-pt and etpenditure of funds ifor hi itelhigene and polce-ntenalsecurity functions. Harrington asks that defendants
_andther~sccesors in office, be permanently enjaind &from etngagin in sch.illal.activities. Plaintiff also requests that defeindants and eirsucesI srsin office, be required to report Atetty abnintelligenc andpolce-ntrnal security activities in compliance with 5 ThSAC. 552 (Pubidin of information for the pubhec record) and i'dentify specficllythefunditi for such activities pursuant to Ar-ticle I, Sec of th Constitution and 31 U.S.04, 1029 (receipt and expndiureofpublic rnoney).
Plainiff fna r reqy ests that the court preliminarily enjoin the defedant frn engaging in all alleged illegal activities pending final dete~iinaion f this action.
Statu.,Deendants' motion to dismiss was granted on July 3, 1975 Plaitifs, edmotice of appeal on July.28. No further action has been

UniedStaesv. Gurney
ii *I Acion, No. 74-129-CR-J-K (M.D. Fla.)
BA4. n tuy 10 '1974, former U.S. Senator Edward J. Gurney 1. lotda twomemd;rs'df his staff and several other ndividets were Wicfd',b a Y ptg rand jury in Jacksonville. 'The 11-count irndictment ~ ~ E chrgdteSeaor 1ithbribery, conflict of interest, conspiracy :todefaudtheUnitel States, anid knowingly mjakitif false material A ,laatohs o a grnn jur[g 2, 201, 203, 371 and 1023 of Title 18,
The :Senator's aides, were also charged with: vilating
8ehato, trley afid is aides'pled not gitilty to each count of the

-,($takW -O uut 6 1-975, Senator Gurney was acquitted of bribpulawful compensation and.three counts or prejury Migtial,7wdclpred with respect to the. conspiracy charge. A new tritontbeconpiracy carge is pending,
-Akt~f y Naiogal Petroleum~ Council
V"1 _A tih 0. 754-397 -(D.D.C.)
de ee etclfon: March 21, 1975, filed this action Ali 'IT, itrj et Courit for the District of, Columnbiat, under the Nd~w. diii Commi ttee Act (FACA) 5 U.SOC. App. 1 (Supp. JIL 9 aad:the Federal Energy Adminitration Act of 1974
1 .., 71-8 (Supp.-, -1975), to enjoin the. Departinoif n riand'the Fbderal EnergyAdministraion from obtaincomfebndations frm the

until tne Counciu "conforms to theprovisions o h eea dioy Conunittee and the Federal Energy7 stato Actshial'ad tion, the, suit requests that,tlhet-ouncill b onjne arl viigFd eral agencies 'until it is lawflIy coiitittdah (1 ~ ryftdoe by the(Office of 'Management 'and' Biaget? 1Paiif eaf'ie this anit as a, redential and general1 consumero erlum]rdcs, and as pa M brof the United States Senat.A-arsdnil d
geieral consumer of P, perlu prouct'Se, A that because "the Council. membership presentl~sntfilbl e or, reasonably representative. in acco rdance ail ,ad siapo priately influenced by special interests," te diead.rcm mnendations which it transmits to the. executv gniswl o adequately consider or prevent potential evrnetldmg, thereby, directly. affecting thLe health and safetyo i aiy As a United iStates Senator, plaintiff'Ai l Metsreendvoe for the Federal Advisory Committee Act and'oefrthFdra Energy Administration Act. The complaintalgd htbcas f
defendants' failure to comply with requiremensocurtlahea' had his votes for and legislative efforts to instine t te effectively nullified. Moreover, the Senator allgdtainhswra. a Member of the Senate Interior and InsulaAfirComte which committee has jurisdiction over the Ieateto, neirs activities concerning mineral regources,--he hsbeinudlnte proper assessment of Interior's requirements eas fteefcs of the allegedly illegal advice provided InteriobyteCucl Senator Metcalf was joined in his suit by Rbr lre rw who also sued as a residential and general cnue f erlu

-the adv~~~~~~~~~~~~ice and rcmedto'no h dioyCmitewl o be~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~i inaproriael inlece yayspca ntrs.

n.iict tdefteDtitfClmaodfnatmoi oediiss

conumes:(1)Aniciatd hghr cshforperolumprounsumer)

Sources of energy. The court held hat these lgainofcsue injuy fil t esablsh area an immdiae ijuryorh "ta ni held in

to sop he Wr 48 US. 28, 2 (173)seealsoUnied tates v.

and EAAandhav~impire hi in caryin ou hi leislative

dutie. Thecourt thed
Plaintiff Metcalf in an affidavit supplementing plainti' a r e t o............................................nj u r y
orkaiined ad sTh :u r- ....
1 .... o
allgedinuris idiate thirlac.of.....ce Pl iii!ii~iL=!~
-Riii is difiul to acceptiihevremise


not, a nop~te:t he r ybo
seen agencies sis
I i lSa; ro f= :o
juiildclrto odeemn i ftr eilaiecus

ar cmley dependent on'Conms for aproprialins. In
short, this sui is an effort to'obt l -addsor'y opinciff rom
tisgor.Sc is forbidden by the "gase" or "1contro-Verey"7
requi nent of Article III. As was sid in a deet case,
"Pleadmngs must be something more than an mpgepniousacademic exercise in the conceivable. A plamntiff must allege that he has been or will in 'fact be pereeptedly harmed by the challenged agency action, not that he can imagm6 circumstances mn which he could be' affected by :the agency's action. And it is equa true that the allegation must be true and capabl of proof at trial." United States v. SCRlAP, 41.2 669, 688-89 (1913). fMetcalf, v. Nas
toln Council, Civil Action No. 75-397
D.DC.); lip Opinion a~t 5-6; hi report at' 228Finally the couit added. that there was a further defect ixi plainatite'" position:
The hipa failed to-shoiv that their injuries came: as a result
of the actions challenged -hereini. T attemnpting to show that defenda' I action's have caused add Will cause'their- injuries, plitfs have-aissumed, if the Conniils membership were ranged, (1), that Council's diice weuld be disfeivns, (2 tht Interior or FEA woulditet ini a ertain way ort not at igh reeipt ot'said, advice, (3) that plaintiffs would not
br Rhnied b' such ictionm or hiaiction, (4) thk'th i qn
advice from the Council, Interior and FEA wouil acti_ -saway differenstfrom their, present actions,'and (;)that ap2
iag adifferent course of conduct by the: governmental agn-, cies, sucl. changed conduct would fear, plaintiffs' interpsts., These assunptions in every vistane lack record support : They ao not. provide the factual fmnadation. upon whichmoe I could reasonably infer thatlin th absence of the dstandants: actions: which plaintiffs sean. to change, the injuries came..
played of would not and will not occur, and that. if the plaintiffs are granted the relipt the seek, tbst Ahose isneiles weulAd oeasse d disappear.- [Slip Opinion-at 6-9; thiasreport at, 30rr,
2 3 1 ..f.................
Stati FAn appeal by, the fild on Fdbatarv 2& l9tCe. is pending befoes the U.S. Court of Appeal fd ot6 eDidtriet of olumbia. The full text of the district. cot4 imrk debt opinion is printe41di this reo 1g dnting a 5
Federal Power Commission v., Mos
Civil Action No. 74-883 (U.S.. Supreme, Court) [seas fuv.
Federal Powoer Commnion, 74--1045 (U.S6 SupremeCort
......A ,:: C ourt).!i

Brief .--On September 11, 1972, agroup ciof U.S. Congressmen [John E. Moss, John D. Dingell,. Ogen R.,Reid Bell S.. Abzug,,
Herman Badillo, Jonathan B. Bingham, Phillip Burton, Silvio O. Conte. Charles C. Diggs, .Tr., George R. Danielson, Thauicns ...
Iiiiiiiii .....................................................
i ..................................................................

I "i:ii~iii~l::iiiiiiii~~~iii i:ii!..............................

:: :!!iiiiiiii:iii iii~ iiiiiiiiiiiii A~ii

.. .. ........ 4iiiiiii i... ........... . . . .

C t, r~i~ii~iiiii

A, etiib fo *rv ie ofa ed~al owr Cmmisin [PO] administrtiv orer.TheCo~ggrssmn fledtheacton s Rpreentatives and onsmerswhowoud hae t payhiger rice fo neural gas

The0onresme'spettio aleg tat he rdr ws mproper
as 4oloivof crtan poviionsof he atual as ct s well as hein. a efortto e-reulae te piceof nturl gs wthot legislaOn Dcemer 1'72 th case o acionbroghtby he ongressMo~was, cnsoidaedwit tw oter ass wichals chllnged the
validity,~~~~to eachFP' rooe Odr4
of he~lantits c tetios aveone I fondtha poviim (e) of thp ne s'ctin ('Aplicfio pesetedherundr wll e considered for erm annt ertficaiou, ethe wih orwitoutprera:ed abandonmntnotithtaningtha theconrac rae my b inexcess of
rea rderof his ComMisgn,2) iioltedwtin 7(b) th Naura Ga. At, 5 U. S.C., 417 b whih'povies n nauralgascomany hal abndon all 6r am p~tin of tsf ciltis ubjcttothejuisictonofthe Cominisio or.ny ervce rndeed b mens f suh fcilties, withI and obxvalabeisuplyc& atralggj i dploed o l eext tthat the eonfiume o'serices uwarrnte orthatthepreentor future

Tho-duit cn~lued.tha 2.5:(e ofthe Comisson' r1e would
h~voobesetasid. I~llothr re~ecs i affrme th Comission's Ord. FPCs pplcatonlora wit'ofcerioariwit te United P. Sate-supemdCout wa grnte on une16 975. Th Cort denied
conresioal laitifs' apliatin o te sme ay Orl rgument

lotsM~rh 3 196 dcisin te Spree Curt overmy


ld at

Buckley.... iiiei

Stigr an otes[omrSeao ueeMcaty twr
RalnsAot omte o ontttoa rsdny osra
tiv Pat fteSaeofNwYrIcAmrcnCnevtv ion an..a...tIc. ie ti utinteUS.Dsre
Cor o h isrc fClm ioJnur2,15.Ath m
tim th litfsmd plcto o he-ug.cut nJn
uar 24tedsrc cutdne heapiainfo he-ug
cor an etteetriiet h ..Cuto pel o h
Distito ouba naeddcopan ie nteUS or ofApeaon Ferur .....the ditoa lanif wr d
[1sispiRpbia PatLbrainPry Cosraive i Vitr Fund.
The plitfs oto hmhv priiae ritn opr
ticipate~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ in on aaiyo nthri h eeapltclpoes
sought~ delrtr....jntv eif gaitcrai rvsoso
th eea Eeto apag c f 91(eenatrefrdo

T*p d gtr 4,q-QuKt) Acting;pursuwa t6.4 suggestion de by-: th'
taelf 'as -a 'udg6,distnet court to hear of qpPP4lS(FoP,*tTfte_. tbredtl
ana 4 eMi;Iiv;T0MAriqently with the, -ciourt iof, kappesis certain'of the constAuff6nal st! A ne -because: the me. doubt
as tq ti4 que s. T-bJs,,waf; do, re was so
# pF9W,'Trowedureito W followed inAhelapopeR Abe 'process.
0,PL! AP9144-i 09 1974 t1w aco4rt of appeals-,,published its decision find" 4,4 qLj or prov nli:ofthe.,FEVA a.thp,1074amend1IR9 alj;nk I+qIo
ments were constitutional. Tl q .court ho*e-t e did.- hold uncowtitutional the provision of the Act'which requires discl6sureoffeiontribudjeVpAdituros, b rouiD.-that h"i'."PUrpose or design
to ip9wVvii. IV401'outoowe "01a., Federal eleUion'" 308 -of fhg- Actq
1, ) ],,- 4midingthat this P i si6n* s- violate 6f the
UJS Col 4474 r0VI a MeI
First "endment in that it would requirereports-by groupswhose only connection with the electoral process "arises in
frGm co' pletely
Discussion P,6 palace.;
nonp4 ues 'blicim
public, c of -iss 'Of pu
-is n 't appeal d.
Thia)pqr Win, of the 0004,of appealsdecis;ion, W 0
ra -e of 'h court,'f appeals,
T4,idistrieteourti fQII6N6AgIhe-, tonal -t 6, 0
also filed itp dpmio1AiQja August 1.5.,
On September 19, appeal from both the district-e6hrt and the court of *Poolis *"1 oa*de, by thei.plaintiffs: to th6- Supreme, Court. Prob-able. Juri.wUction W, os 1 rwW by theXourton Octobet 6, and th 6- case
.on b ...
was **4e& ovem or:10;On December 17, the plaintiffs filed an applicationAo.,enjwn the Federal Election Commission from making paymi Jhts,_.purguant to the FEG Wto, tho;sO candidates who had qualifier f6r matching funds.
On Demmber 221-) t4e,, Court airinounced that,. the vote being four in favor (of ecLntibg the, inj uAction a-, -four opposed, the, application was denied.
OoJaiwarjr.,30, 1976,'the SAipteme Court issued its decision in the case. Five Members of the Court [Burger, GJ7 Blackmun,. White, Marshavll,,'aiidl-Rehnqm,*stiJ-J.I filed eparato opinions concurring and ,di invaXious Part& of the Majority pe'r.eurwm decision.
Nini3: c6iistit itional question had been. certified to the Supreme Court for its determination.
0 t
I e, of- of theTederal Dec&d 2 TJ. G. 4 .h
0, P41911r, -S (.aAt in'the
-4#Jh reqp4re, rtsof theUnited ates:to
render advisory opinions in violation Of the "c4se _f07
Arfirlg constitution Of ti un ite'a Sifl6if
p injmry his
f00atA40f)1W, righf*iqwn, g.
to create'a constitutional case or controversy,, W
judicial power under Article TII?
,qnA=sj*fAoiV4*J ,,Ji lo Toll: ?'(11
r 414
32.6 Vow y4w.-4-4?w .1
_Vt6MWdVN h4ftil t
visuals: or organizations may on Ii ar exptn in


tian dith electak for fdaelksflt vjocida~e t gi ,o 6hdf or more of thebplaintiffs dader al]k irs ftor tl1 AneiadmeMt r thb Due Pro t~a bf6 vt4T meakt the Constitntion af the Unisid Statos
(a) *Des 18:--. 68(b) 9 obts sushlrights, in t itt frbids a cadadapte ote inedibers of lhis iai~At 6 fm exped 1pron fds qh esess 86othe;0 O:b

(b) Des SC 6():riolateoeactr lights in that it.
forbid the soiiain wi or zdskin of ~onekbutfl ;*v.0 behalf of eoiial cac in exce -ot thd .tse

amutRpcfed in 18 U.S.C. e()e. 08 b) I Aniewer, Notab lda:.l 0.3
(c) Dos 18 ESC8 51(')iL 608 iola44 sub fh r61h
wongo $,0 enneedst(dys behalf i o. t snil
dat) xpndtuesOf an prsnAli eW toy 'neda tte

()'oes 19USG 1608 () violat&ek tlh righthe in MtaI t ramts:te 10 the xpe d .o namt icalon stdehfodiboko dlat)capdtes o nydoion with generl etoiio am
Answe r. It tdte)Wt .Anealt 5tl d
(ef) Does- 19000 S 6herbtdenal Reenuce Code s 1054 i lat ahr ota timitas the e penditures af zthenl o'tsiwCOidg f
nomiting catesonvent ion ik geea .eto.lfM Answer.-No, as to the Fifth Amndment ,challenge,- ad-rvented ly appdllants.
-(g) Doe 900 .S.C. In41ead (fvnu } a d 1.,6. ( 51*e land (f ) viatsuc rf. hts :in thatt the exntues oftote nommnaris anmeitte.oial farom wthrespeatutorsdnil "comnrbtionvetins
Answer. Nhou stted Fith itndmnt chesnad- i quneto to apeolventhssuspeetd (hndos# .8 68b (2 ) violate such rights, in thtte xep&esatie,
cmentaesoa t eandtras fo h "pltalut mmmini ons 'otiuiestantepn"doftmpaie
Answer. Nh o. r ttdta tnd o:rsodtti
()Doe 18 U.S.C. 608 b n"0.$o h ak Ien
of 19he vidtlat ahi h hf sta

thgovernment may bing ormnlProecutineagainestay

Answer. The Court stated that it need not respond to. hi qiesOin tosove the, issues preented.
tttof ih halne ttts onth alih amuts thatcadi
date~ o lcWIdea femy expipand imtorcapin
violate the rights of one or more of the plttiftiffs 'mndoi the F~sor. Ninth Am~endment or the Due Proces& C Imse~ otthe
(a Dps'l 1US.C 608 (c) violate such -igh ji tt it
i6W exed~tues. by edi hates fei federal office iniee s
'n Whss efein" 8U.C.808eI

(b) Do 18 U.S.C. 608 and 9012 of the- rnternal Rri~vnn
Voq.Of194 ioat s ,chirghts, in that they -povd that
1,9OIMt" e r tion aga s

tee,~t~ inaiWs~ci

Stli Bo reb6t'. the Fiftbit d,.
t ci con etio b tail~i~is If- eC.infitun of de

..f o e o .o e, o 6die' ofn der' theC F~irs 0 or oint
eut,7the J~ut ProcessC~ ,o rthe Ninth'Ameixdthe~tx~e UntatSttes
tar prdeisionntof 'S t eoH

.*dnd, o fr BU provided tht
lejSo i0 8,Clue 1Ai tht threy o

7. Do itee plitica reqirment i if calegdsatut

-the names, occupations,-and cipsl plAces of bgs ,(V
any) of those of their contributors who conWiblit '14. W,9 s of $100?
Answer. No.
(c) Does 9 U.&C., 434 d)-I'Vidlate !%%IQh::Ti&t$2 in i4l: It neither -requires disclosure of mortrWp,4o contrii b4tk ,expenditure. by iucumbbnt offieeholdera the-rpso eauh *wated Mi: 2 U.&C
(d) Does 2 U.S.C. 434(e) violate such' Ots. iu t6t It provides that 'every person :contributing orexjmndmig more 116 Ot
than $100 other than by contribution to.* ve it),C4 CAMMI tee or candidate & jincluding volunteers with' Mcidental. qxpenses in excess of $600) must make disclos'ro t the F' il Eleetion Commission I
Answer. No.
(e) Does, 2 U.S.C, 437a violate such bright ., in that it uireg any person who expends fun& o'r compilts anY.aet for the purpose of influencing the outcome of. an'.election dr' $MY. Ml ri
who publishes or broadcasts to the public _,U "al adVocating the election or defeat, of -a candidite et hig f6fth a candidate's position on any public issue, 'his votin rord I gm 9
or any official acts to file reports with the Commissldh as if such person were apolitical committee?
Answer. The court of a'ppeals saidYES. This p6rtionof
-their opinion was not appeala]
(f ) Does 2 U.S.C. 441 violate such A. ghtal'in that it Pirovides criminal penalties for violations of Chipter' _141 of Title U.S.C.?
Answer. The Court stated that it need not respond to this question to resolve'the issues presented.
8. (a) Does 2 U.S.C. 43.7c (a) violate [the Aghts of one oir more of the plaintiffs under the constitutional separation6f ,powers, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, -or Nirith Amendment, Art. 1, 29 cl. .6, Art. 1, 5) cle 1, or Art. III] by tM method of appointment of the Federal Election Commission?
Answer. With respect to the I powers referred to in Qws. tions-8 (b) -8 (t) the method of apiDointment violates ArL'II,
2 cl. 21 of the Constitution. At
g vio]06 sue
(b) Do 2 U.S.C. 437d and 437
that they. entrust administration ind" enforcement: of the PECA to tho Federal Election Comm'igsift 1
Answer. -The Ye&ia: ".Electipn CoMMIS16n: as lp"sently Co 9 ; ) of the: Cewt"6
institute imay not u Aft. H, 2 8.
tion e:kercise, t4e d to i Q stibn 8 (b) j 'tl 4: t
(O.'Doos, URCO' 4.37' siieh, ri&, i iA.,that
-it empowers.1he. V.,6 dJal Ae6twfi i lCoinmil kwin iijW the Atr torn6y Gmeral b6 Wila" lgilll acti6til, (i6lkidiftg pmwed4w for injunctio s).aoinA 11LS isirip. OFe&, or who
may engage in acts or" t -FadOW
Red cm, OMUP4 _;410014,413,
Ac5 as neqdod or U,609 6141:61#t7 64 7 6. of title .8 ;0 j

. .. .....

swer. The F de'ral, Eleefion Commissioh aslipresently
constituted may not under Art. 11, 11' 6L 2,- of, the Con-, st it'ttion-l 6ie'cise.the powers referred to *.Question 8(e).
(d) Does .2'U.&C- 15 in that I it
438 ke) -violate uch, ri ts elilikWerg- the -Federal'E-Ieetio']I. Cqmmlssion' o make rules
under the FECA in the manner specifiecl'the'ein?.
or.,-: T lie, F64ersl Klee tion Commiss, on. tl
constituted, rijak- rkbt Abder Art.:II,, ,2, qL *; of th6.Constitu_.
tion exercise the powers refeftadtoijiQuesti4n8(4),
lo a e such rig' ts, in' at im-'
(e), Doe V; I 't
a "date: for, okcw
01ii.porarydi 01i on n hdi
squa y ca
tioa. to. fq& atp& Wh fou'n d the 'Fodetal Election
.0 01 S y,
'Who ile4 t6 file report ired byTitlo A requ
I I the;' Feder ad E16666ii -Oa mpai gn;.Act, as amendedV
4P.,wer.: The-Ved'era lectidn CWrimission. as7-presan tly
not "dor- Axt.' I cl.'q, -of- the ConAhuR3P* 9 21
bm exercise the PoWefs refer & to lih Question 8 (e).
es 0.8 of tle Intqrnal'Itevehile' Code- of 1054
_4ghtsl M-t at'it eii powe's the Fedelial Election glAtip 66 h
ommissi,94 0 authorize 6xpell ure
dit s of the national coxn. : 'Mittee, f ty wit tes 6ct 0' Presidentilat'hi minating
"PuVentiplIs 14 exc Ss of'the IiInits enumerated therein?
IT A isOer. The Fed6ral Election IC6mmlssioft as presently'
maynotunder AA-z 1 2' cl. 2 of the Consti
tutionexercipe, th rs refer t.0 I Question. 8 (f .431 (b
9 (d)) (e)) and (f)'I 434 (ey)
4874) 437d 07k 7), and 456; 18 U.S.-C. - 591 (b);'
608 (6), (c) (4) 7, (e Inte Rev Ila 54 9002 (2) (9)
of 10, 9006 d) :9008 (d) (9)
9032(9)1 (4), (8) and (9), and 9037 violate, the constitu-"
tional,,nfrhts of oneor more of the pl intiks in iliat they vtr6
si rue
'woes tvn
:"SweX7:.As, Q stion: 97'the Courtstated qi estion 9
W w4t a, ogfd vague;ioss, in several provisions,
F&dj 4j -9011 is. resolvedintheopinion to the extent urged, by
the parties.
Ustt of the Sup e: rem court's opinion was printed in a, spe1--toPortof 'the -Joint Committe6 on: Congressional Operdtion a 6n,
Aimiry 30i 0%,
M6011mal tribal OWrMen4i As ciat" Abourezk
iT*d Action N66,75-0W3 (D.D.C.)
.1 u0rief,-, On Afay 20,1975, the National TribalChairm
an's Assoq'at,
tion (hereinafter referred to as NW A) Med suit agai I ;i A
IW4a.ja,,:PqIiey, Ueview Commission and, AS 'CO.04nisslioners, who biC1Vae(;9X:,Se4atOra and Congressmen, Appointed to the Commission by, the President Pro Tom of the'Senate and Speaker of the House.
Tht OVMnission wascreated. by A joint resolution pf congress WIM: 00 *Pprovai v-of VXm4elit. Ita.&e. Indian: representatives were

aptebyte? th
sitoa Aeb nd e df
-Inianon aiy s
,M tremmer hl efice tm-Idn rlS polit r eonzdb h eea ~enet cornbr hl eseetd'trpeen r~,

ec liIi .
herscladlgldvlpet nl h na nqeiea

sion ert dtrin h
meonshpwt h eea oebxeaimo catren n op ftencsayreiiu ntefruaino poiismdporm o tebnfto Idas ThcTAdsrbe tefa olnayniTftira.nzto

bopsdoehs hiiePeidns oenr, r'hego

reevtoinino ffdrly e gie rbswt eea

jz powersxud respoiisi litiesvested, in the Ame c
lan. Policy. RevIew Coju=issio n,' (,"Commission") are, ex6144ve Y'.legislative. in nature, -we NeGmin v. Daugherty, 273 TJA 'id 7), Watkins v. UWMd States, 354 U.S. 178
(1957), Barmblatt v. United States,, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), E4wtland v. Uaited States Smvicewwn's Fund, 421 U.S. 491
-nd, consequently, nei r the, creation of the ComIYUS8101ft nor the appointment of its membership by Congress, or designated subgroups thereof, is violative of the doctrine of sepa;ration of powers or the Appointment& Clause of the
CQn8UtRtj0tjj arto 119 .2 cl. 2, Buekky v. VaZeo U.S.
44 UAL.W. 4127 4162-70 (U.S. January 30, 1976), of. 1n reUonmev, 13 Pet. (38 U.S.):230,258 (1839) CoWns v. Upited States 14 Ct. Cl. 568 (1878), Sp7iWer v. PA-i'Zippim Islaw&,
77 UK 189 (1928) (2) the Indian members of the Comrul$swn are not "inferior officers" of the United States within the. meaning of the Appointments Clause, Buekley v. Valeo, 44vw4 44, U.SJA.W. at 4164-70; (3) the present Indian membership, of the. Commission reflects the criteria for selection doWled. in SwAion 1 W of the American Indian Policy ReVIeW. ODMDASSWU Act ("Act") 7 25 U.S.C. 174 (1975) and ,0), the. Dirmtor and General Counsel of the Commission were appointed "by record vote of -a majority of the Com1WROR 1 members, 71 as required by Section 6 (a) of the Act.
*tion v. Abowv-ok, Civil
VativwZ Tribal Chaimenv Amoem I
IVQ': 75-8-03. (D-D-C) Order at 1-2; footnotes
qp t 4d,; -this report at 245, infra.]
8fthm. -4-A -notice of &Ppeal b-y the plaintiffs was filed on March 19, 19T6;rb6f6te, the U.S. CobA of Appeals for the District of Columbia. No further.-action hasbeen taken. T110 funtext, of the district court's order is printed in the report b*nuing bm''page 245.

8P0rWr1VW"e,-CerPwwtion v. Steiger
C fAWoqi-.No.Q86651 (SipremeCoart, State of Arizona)
_X.ce7li and its subsiliilia ,
W powtservi'
W liw, -OF i;x vajanus businesses including horseracingdog
bj qx4W with those activities, as well as the
o ion of f' d and beverage eonr*Ssions filed, suit against R presentative E am. St i e of his former ides,. andothers alleging a
'd I "Atiff's business activities f6r 'defepdant's
ID al
j?03(-6D"1. b oh6ft"Th, 45Q t asks $11000MO -n damages.
h!o* chana', poitservice aAeged that statements made
*]RAVr; qitative Steipr E nd disseminittidn by hi of material to certain publicatiot'is: wi rdl t of %the conspiracy.
Representative Steiger in his answer denied anycoupiracy, responded that all the statements he had made and this In0erial he had f ruished were true, and claimed t 4"04s dpne er perlormedweire m1ppr s.,in if0aw;464 Of WS official
rq*ii ea.44 *ViVere,. Pro-1 t ilege, 4na., iegwiii lz=u


m P
nity." A9 for fh6 ikat i#fits'
to be -defamatory; ROP"entati* Stciko,'t, ks*ft d t i& itatel nt s
gcv *,and*
were true madiB in Ot f Lithiw the belief d 't
in any'''vent 'privileged d's kat PIn rtt ma:m it t involvin matters of P Uljik, concerh N
1 S ." onReore''e'tative Steige'r's ftn rwerl td S Irtserlokol Oii
tainted k co'unterelaitA'a:llegifi,&th-t''S' A6ftwe an
effort-to defemie hilia &nd't6Idkfti' M fi 19 tifg, L ii! nd.
as a Mjbmborof Cqftgr6s, RPpr( sehb ti* Z11 W' 666 f 61ftiiii,06eks, $2,00o,006 in_,dftbft4O_ P t
During, the cours e 14' thepr ceA_ h tr&I &4A.
sentati'e Stei ef s f4me' 'Rlidc tcr, in a,,
ver y, wligx asedisco sp kh D e
bate O'n's' n' Y W &6vtmt th6 a d 1 rolm i'nlmu Ii rVI
ice th-s' -s tigh t, a to. rtquim ifie i& fA 'r
g ean.
i 61, tktl aporder, issn6d" 4 !Ail 6burt, but It" J ointAlfi S
pealed The malte'' dh.The;:bi6f ort tliio Aift*i Z Is, 1,), iger v. Th&SUpeii6 Nurt of "th .:8&te.'6 4v440ft -a N a'
O&P 4-1 ty
q0l 'ZR
Number- 11752 (1976):.J-4hd'"s'd dad lon. iliho
Befo'e the -5tLaW-:SIIpremj *4rt,- Re &64 ntav ii Om asserted that th FiC66 s c6Tfipl ain'ied' of b '61+ied
out irf hisoffi-idl bap4'it' hd fhA SpL:--4& 6fD UWM ise, i* umty was a-bar toinquiry lfit6 hlis 16
The c vitm' th''t. 6 the
ourt held t_, f *hilp 168, A. ar
legislative' proce I iie imlhune f 161(i I*heA 661il, ft.
inal. Aa tdtes l ikh-t*_Oth;erWise t ppy p ch, 6 ri DebAW Chiti &'immunity does not shield everything, related tb, a OrAigi 68'smifthi J ''Office. Only, acts.: done in, the, roams of. enactfiw,, 1w 919,616n,, ar6. -protected. WIilee Representative Steiger had L #B*,ftedl t< thv fleb MhkIl ilwt" to have been the subject matter of fh6,, depositiait were ,poxt of, aW investigation hb was conducting; the court noted thatAhet& 'was', 00 showing that the inv' ligation was related to my wading oongmefi signal inquiry or legislation. The court also noted that more than one year after the acts occurred, Representative Steigw4zitrod*eed-,*!WI'. to provide qriininal penalties for fixing certain hore or. dog races. While the court. said Iit was a gable. thit the' IMvetu'l tive, proposal may'' have oresulted'fr6ni the iiiyostfgifion':A d as'siijdh process, 1 ed ib &6*t, $af, *SIA's"
was related'to the legislative P R?connection was sufficient to bring the' acts ig th Wt cfi6n. cif th6 Speech or Debate Clause immunity,
Statm.-A trial on the merits is pendinginthia,4p tato, C9114.
system. The decision of the Arizon S Irv rhe,
a, uprle V,
Superior Cowt of the State of Arizwza for, Ma'reop'a is d
in the "Dec*sions" section of the report of COUd ing
Action of Vital Intere8t to the Co ei, August 15, 191.
Drinan v. Morton
Civil Action No. 75-1916 (D.D.C.)
Bief.-On N ovemb r 11, 1975'Reptesen ivo 4)
Members of the Housle of Representafiv filed"AA, Congress, against Rogers'C. B. Mort6n it- SeeretAl I 64 'Co'ri nheive' fifid:

'Thom's K~ppeas, Secretary of the Interior, alleging that certain actoiis an -incton of ,the defendants had violated Sedtion 3 (5) of t -EportAdmiistration Act (hereafter referred to as"Act"'
Seebin. 3 5 the Act provides as follows:
It s te plicy of the thrited States (A) to oppose restrictivetra e atices fostered or imposed by foreign countries agafist ohercountries friendly to the United, States, and (13 t* courage asnd request, domestic concerns engaged, in theexp or ofarticles mtetrials, supplies, or information, to refuse totakay action, including the furaiahing oif inforinaionor he ighting of agreements, which has the effect of furteriigor upporting the restrictive trade practices .or.
boyott foteed or imposed by any foreign country against
anothercty friendly t the United Sta tes.
The laitifs sate-that uinderthe Constitution, it is the duty of the Congessto dterine and state national policy, and the duty of the exectivedepatent to implement and eflectnate it anhd to refrain fromactons hathinder, impair or frustrate, it; that Israel is a, country.fri~dlto-hp pited, States;- and that as tnimbe of eountr'ies in 6eNea' it .t or6tli Africa now and fo mny years liave, engagdina ysem aic, and continuing byotof Tsre ad, df Ameiecandoaeti cncr~arn engaged in trading or doimg business with or ih
The omplintalleges that under Morton, the Commere Depart1meti eed~.6 inert*he kn p-Identatiori of the Act's policy by promotig bsinss etween the Near East and North African, countries and Amrican oerns that comply with their boycott policies and pracice thoug publications encoinaginghbsihesmdn not steVV doin b~ines wth those countries to began domng so, and offerng tbeserie f. heDepartment in elping them stait It states tat Xoroa,-wot anaricle in a Department publication titled "Midast 'Tradeand t eactt"; which failed to mention Section 3 6f the Act. FurtertheDeprtment issild.Export Regulations Section 369.1 WN-li. ia~est-at t s the pIhe of the Unie States to oppoed rS~rl Oy~qtsipsed b forei contries against any coua Jncudd n acetain gru, 4nd 11 exporters are "encour*agedan irop-ete re se ti e (bt ate not e al prdhIbI ed from ioa"t would futer the boyco6tts. The complaint states 6a h, roiis otig, which allows the executive branch of the Govern.6 t10'd Aerican-concerns that they can take actions direct ,Oyt~he national policy as expressed byte Congress, that the ,s~t et s n roneous statement of law, and that its onypups can to.Viyit d encourage American concerns to violate the antipolcy f he United States. Finally, plaintiffs complain that
olaes-thepohy () y circulating notices of trade PPPO j es o- nders from Near Eat and North African countries ,I 0: Alirli ,''Cnarns 'without 'info6rming& then that these countries
_p~i~cpat, i bocott policies and practices against which Section 3
ficall amd(2bycruaigshnotices and
einviting conr expressly exclude concernstt
kls innfItue bycnes thatae officially

Act; and (4) by ciculatig suich'ntiti aR Ienders with timn that compliance with the boycott provision is contrary to Amerilcan policy buit is not dfea r legally prohibited.
The coplaint alee that under' Kleppp's .direction or approval, the Deparitmet of Itro, in purchasing -materials for use by its Geologieal Sturey Bureau in Near Eat and North Af rican countries required the Athericane vendors to suhmit certification tAt neither the steamship on which the materials were to be sent nor the company insuring the materials wereon the boycott list of the country involved.
StatusPTh sut, whibb asks for declaratory and infanctive relief to prevent defendants from encouraging trade between American concerns and the Near Et i and North Afrietn counttnles, is pending in U.S. Distrlet Court for the District of Colnmhia.,
flaited States v. Jons
CrimnlAto No. 76--37 (D.D.O.)
Brief.-On Janiiary 29, 1976, Reresentative James R. Jones pled guilty to a violation of Title 2, Unite States 'Code, Sections 434 and 441, failing to file, with the Clerk of the House, a complete report of receipts and expenditures received during hiIs 197 congressional campaign.
Status.-On March 16, Representative Jones was ordered to pay a $200 fine.
Simon v. UnitedStates Postal Service.


In its order the court enjoined the Postal Service from closing or
consolidating any post office until the regulatory requirements are met.
Status.-On March 22 the case was consolidated with National Association of Postmasters of the United States, et al. v. U.S. Postal
Service, et al., Civil Action No. 75-1954 (D.D.C.).
On April 2, the Postal Service filed motion to dismiss or in the
alternatives for summary judgment, which is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

i H.


. .. .... ..

esi StDstrict Court for the District of Coh nibi
.Civil 1N0. 75-1L956
AsHL~~iIilff OIL IN.,?ITIV


11 E. E

S. Roze ark Hogber'C. Simmons, Hory&Simor, Wahington, I.C. for .plainktifE., Teffrey Axelrad, Department of Justice, and William A.E. ID i g,"Fedea rad 1'8 inthioi for defendants Federal Trade. Qomision, et al. Janeph,.A. Ca ano, Jr. BenjaminW 1eineman Jr. 1 Itish ard M. OpQoper, W illiams, Connoly &Califano, ashington, D.C., for intervenor-defendant Jon

This ciil action for declaratory and inunctv rel 1 wa Conunenced pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Administrate Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) and 28 U.S.C.
133-32 137,1361, 1651, and'2201-02., The amunt in oitroversy exblusive Of -interest, And.'costs, is in excess of 000.e Veue prpel l ies in this district by virtue of 28U. S.C. 1391 (e) (1).

The plaintiff, Ashland Oil, Inc. ("Ashland"), is incorporated under the laws of the State of Kentucky, with principal offices in Ashland, Kentucky. Plaintiffs busi

and gas properties.
Defendant Federal Trade Commsion ("FTC") is
federal regulatory agency establshe uner, operating pursuant to, and administering the Federal Trade Con

! Rand Dixon, Atig shand iofd

A. Tobi i secretary, wel T o ise
Elizabeth Hanford and Stepe A. have been named
as defendants in their official capacities.
John E. Moss is a member of the United SttesHouse of Representatives. nd Chairan.fthe S!,, coamittee p Quereightiazuk Investigations, of t 9e House- Iteiy at lan Foreign Commerce Comnittee ('Subcpmnittee". Con gressman Moss has intervened of right in this action a party-defendant by virtue of Fed.R liv. H. 21()an House Resolution 899 (94th Cang., 1st 86&s).
On or about April 15, 1975, the FTC served 'Upon the plaintiff a "Natural Gas Survey'Special Report" order ("Special Report") issued pursuant to: Section 6(b:),o the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. } 46(b)). By this order, Ashlana was required to file a Special Report" and was advise& that non-compliance would result in the imposition of penalties under applicable provisions of federal law. On August 27, 1975, Ashland responded by filing with tle Commission a comnletel Snpeia1 Renewt' containino- the
ifrainsuhbythFTTeuein-te ir
maio -umtewahihysniie ,wp.i !~a
dealnih opn' eeveetmtsfr j.o s

natural gas leases and contracts nationwide! Ashland's submission was accompanied by a letter from J. C;reig Coogan, Vice President of Ashland Exploration Com-papy (a division of Ashland Oil, Inc.) stating that the company's information on gas reserves was confidential and of a proprietary nature, such that disclosure would result' *in competitive injury and that such information was sub the Commission with the specific reservation. that the plaintiff could claim its right to have the materials. therem' provided "accorded confidential treatmefit and be, -protected from disclosure." (Plaintiff's
Complaint, Exhibit AA).
On October 6, 1975, Congressman John E. Moss, in his
capacity as. a, member of Congress, requested the FTC to make available to him data gathered by the Commission pertaining to lease extensions on federal lands. (Id., V.
V. Exhibit A) B letter dated October 24 1970 Charles A.
Tobin Secretary of the Commission denied the Congress man s request for the' reason that the data sought W constituted "trade secrets and commercial or fiiiancial
information and geological and geophysical information =d dataincluding maps concerning wells which were
exempt.. from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom
of Wormation Act (5, U.S. C. 552 (b) (4) and (b) (9)
Cousequentij, Secretary Tobin concluded that the Commission was without discretion to releasesuch exempt
ree,,prdsr,(1d-,, Exhibit B.
n 04obex 29 1975 Congressman Moss sent a. second
lz, TW43t the. F T C, butthis time in his official: capacity as 03,*man,,of the Subcommittee on Oversight and InV *at-104 .0 us
'k f tAe 11o e Committee on Interstate and
P.QjTeigA n1wree., (M., Exhibit C)S Congressman
le# x pted that the..Freedom of Information Act
not, -,aii hqrity to, withhold information.. from C ongx t "tui cond request was-made,-u t in the
p Inor" fi6n 0,6&Alned iA Ashind's, svs6lfti Repo;rt included the locations
AXW. ldndtLes, or viaintirs "natural, gki lmi4o, -togaher with information revmltag the pqcen owners4ip of, various individuals insuell lea$es aAd Ashland's
ftinaf 'as;'to gals'rcserve's inthose leasesl., (See AffidaVit of Geor e C.'
4RM(441 1 1a*Affih( *emoranduq, in Support of Motion for, Preliminary
Of. 5 U.S. C. 552 (c).

Congresman's indjividacaaiybu"s hirpAP the Sucommittee onOvrihan vett* j, the'purose .of fulfillingteSb te' nrUvr sio~t rsponsibilities. Thei'TC treated (ogesa os.S 'e~~)I4e s a~~ Congrtession reu. tadbltero bek'181975, adv ised teC *,ta hut gasresrve data whie'ih eus ,-yuc on bomber. 28, 197ntim'er a nang~ cauiond that severalo o &O, n
sidredthe data "compliiey er,,e~ii~ n~~lt cons tet trade secure hcz' uiso:: i rhibtedfrom makingpulcudrSio6(),fth FedralTrade Con-misso Atad1 & S Geoogial Survey alswa"ote pin'thths'is confidetial, proprietainom n.R'watn'f n-lntonthat the Conmsincniudto emovc'r liigtin with compane euigt ioid uhd 4 und-r he Specia IReotodr.Trfre amn Engma emphasized ta:
Asa result, yourSboite'wl ee. edt rnl from thosecopne hc'a vltriy coplied with: th o msso' res TisfCt is ot lost uponcopnefaewih*frmtn reqests from theCmiso nwl olfltt encurage voluntrcopineescalyfay
sestive unformatoismdpulc
Therefore, theCmiso epcty: tt
srngly urges yorSbomtetoaianth cofidentiality of h nomto sbitdi e upose to your reqetadipatclr hrsrv

a,.d oud nt e oud tojtil thvembedri '28th ade Meat1 the iirntbi nise
Thi d'tin ws i n Novtmb1 th, 195 tn bon

tha a'te;,plintf thoed Intrst and red atoma hith ni the Feera Trade th~~erebyo preerdn th tiso uti the Feeralon stere".h'tert o Aa'inars tolaidse.p'tinn and~~~~4 ah himno h n/ersae extFoenin Comihere 06HM~te edn Ahan il ne an supeadcstcmrqin Ing FTC 4hepndencea tw penber thePeel Subcommittee and Ashlbe 97and il In.ring wih Anyf L all eeid ors 'Wti teFr l os de Cnit a mislo Contolds cuofdenia or toi give adac
T-r Coms'ea thro (Sedue H.R.pep.aino.g
o, W~olvn .,-I st Seso s a e xt4n(1975)).
V Yedera~anberi3, 1975, CshlaOirmInands ineludingthis corsuboena uniatwern the Coueral Trade Comm esto ns asng Oilnhscs. (aid. i an~f Mafn975, arete Hous pooe Repreentvs jaoiceof he e01uet rofo 9. (121 Cong. Re. 12.
3y ltterof: eber 8, 1975)) Sctin 1Mofs the
-formed~~ chairEnman of the Subcommittee d"o
orceent acionof hissubpenauntl atertheour
-4s osidee' h qusin'ars in thscseI.

Oneerbr1, 95 heHueofRpeenaie
AsetdtoHue Rslto N.89 (2 og.Re 2

,S,1 O~ d Dcme 1,17) eto Io h
_R |to d

"Ashland Oil Incorporated, plaintiff against.Yederal Trade Commission et al., defendant," Civil Action 75--1956, UnitedStates District Court for the District, of Columbia on behalf of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce in order to seeure.information relating to natural gas reserves now in the possession of the, Federal Trade Commission.for the use of the committee and. the House. (Emphasis
On January 16 1976 after a hearing held in en
court, we granted Congressman Moss,'s motion to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 (a).
Plaintiff has moved for preliminary and permanent injunction. Defendants Moss and FTC have filed motions, for summary judgment or, alternatively, to dismiss, The Court, sua sponte, advanced and consolidated the b eAringon the merits of Ashland's complaint with that on its. motion for preliminary injunction. See Fed. B, Civ. P.65 (a) (2).
The principal arguments on the merits of this case focus on Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), which empowers the Commission
To make public from time to time such portions of the information obtained by it hereunder, except trade secrets and the names of customers, as it shall.
deem expedient in the public interest; and to inake, annual and special reports to the Congress and. tosubmit therewith the recommendation for additional
and to provide for the publication. Of itsreports and decisions in such form and aA.
may be best adapted for public M*forinati : on and. us e.
,(Emphasis supplied.)
Ashland maintains that the language, employed is unequivocal in prohibiting disclosure "of trade secrets by, theFTC to any third party, including the Congress thAt this construction is buttressed by the legislative, bistory. of Acty by the wording and judicial interpretAtion of'sihnilttlr.,

statutory provisions, and finally. by the "historical position". of the Attorney General's Office from 1909 to the present that such language ordinarily indicates an absolute prohibition against executive disclosures of proprietary data to the legislative branch, absent adequate
assurances that confidentiality will be maintained.
In addition to specifically invoking confidentiality protection in. submission of its reserve estimates to the FTC Ashland states that it relied upon the belief that the Commission would abide by the mandate of Section 6(f), as well as the FTC's own rules and refrain from divulging the materials in issue to Congress. Even if the FTC's disclosure to Congress is held pursuant to a lawful subpoena, laintiff believes that the ultimate result will be a ISerious infringe ent of its common law and statutor.y
bright, and a violation of its constitutional guarantees of I -equat. pir6tection, due process and freedom to petition the
Congressman Moss and the FTC respond that Section
:6 (f clearly does, not restrict Congressional access to -trade ..secrets or 0- ther types of information collected by
since such a limitation upon the inherent
the FTC in
-vestigatory power of Congress may not be, imposed by -iinplicatilon., The pertinent language of the Section--- 'to make public"-does not explicitly refer to Congress, and, thus;'a&ording to defendants' argument, cannot be read as bition of Congress statutory right to "annual
and, special reports" or its Article I subpoena power.
.1 relying on legislative history, defendants Moss and q:X.1 -FTC conclude that the Cmamission was intended to be no
more than an extension of the Congressional "visitorial ..Power., at least in its information gathering function, 4%nd tberof 'ore a convenient storehouse of information
readily accesaible to the Congress.,
lu addition, defendant contend that the' SubcommitOpoena and the underlying investigation of the
naWxal OF; industry are legitimate exercises of the
Vs'. conferred,. iipon, the CongTess under Article I; and Mee, I powers have been: I iIh4ti 0 eh, constitutional egit

altmate lnoegibylav puorposae brh been 6r ae "Ashltacconstitetinl stattryc and requi ro n merrnt t fere ith legime assl
costittionl perdnsatmpt ips of thehCngaes."s
1Viniaumet in pport or1Vrotiont nin Diatomie
'&sil.n' csiutNinltauoy aAS E eRVEabl arS'

Sinee plaintiff endeavors to.' invoke commonlw~n statutory protection for its reserve estimatesteCor must make -a threshold eterlarmnatish whethersc a terials fall within the' "widely relied apndfniino trade secret found at 4 Bestatement of Tortg5,Cm meant b (1989) 9"4 5Vie. : I1
A trade secret may consist of any fdrmua aten device >or ,compilation .of information whihil ue in one's business, and which give him anoprtny to obtain arvedvantage ever comnpetitorp, wod~o knoy or use it.@af4 R0eastaemntl ofYr. 1

According to -the Restatemetea a mbretprecietdfnto of what constitutes a trade secret is not tosfi~.Hw ever, Commpat b dese efaueratea negnberdo aoo
which mtay seist a court &* deternnte whethdrpre' lar data rises, to the level of a tade: therite
(1) the extent to' which the information s: nw outside of his -business; (2) the exctent tohc, t i known by employees and others; involvedihs tfness; (3) the extent of. measures taken~b i:t guard -the secrecy of .the information; (4) h iu
of the: information, to him' and: to his, compeios
the amount of effort- or money expOendet-bi11ti developing the information; i (6)cthe,,ae of nanout

See Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bieron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 474-75 (17)
.. . .

therecrd efore the Court, itiseiu
lan's atual reserve estimatessaifechotee
tera. he atain issue has bee onilda h
eonideahl' epese of "hundreds emoran in Support of' oinfrPeii

M6 oVE1t he gency with particulrepriei h
'.Veulaion naurl gas, the FederalPwrCmiso
lia. .eplicitly recognizednaulgsrerv
ips~ats t bovauable, proprietaryst. o xape H in merad !Tes Cor poration, 5O( PC 14,15
e:(M3) ~ ~ oh- eny bserved:
egl tha wi ust be recogietht aua
gas cmp~ns reserve data, nuc iea aeto

l i highl c a
nature and4disclosure of such information prior

i 4
t theidrainageisaleiwouldidestroyiiiIiiiiiii
........ Iaabgl

by maing aailale tootherco pmes te re

s o a


S r d

"'v ae p" i
Betie 9FPC 48 42 171 h P icse
th nepnig fishlig sflos Th oiyresnineryniu asrneo
confientility..e.ovio.. Inapro hn h a

supl sotgismsactdslsrofeile
reev aawududutdyihbtftrix

plrto fooe a eevssic pcltr n

8 3.'
Omj e I or w -D eln, use i to "undertake the Ei-ii6bf4''' t, h'
1' Me or thwart the
9P eirt,'Procute e-ages"'Aii& -apP

; 6 npa plfivg.", Jrc6r& -k nter v. Shell Oil Cfa..P 199
.;d 811 5th"Cire 1962);.'Ohi6'Oil.;C6-!, Sharp :1.35 V.24(1" Vi r '11943)' P v. MR hell, Petro leuni Corp., 100t
F2&8W (TOth'clr,,. ib 8 ..Sel 'algo J6hh'T. Voi 0y I I ,
ratories., in!6 1b."', Lloyd Pha4,*a69_ts;- 131,
7 _T
6th' it 'llaa''COp. OiXdri#on
0" 0 .,, 1942) DI
41 59 "(D's N.J.: 1958 14.275, J,
202 (M vir., 'i '0y; errolld-Stephe'ns'Co. V. "Stavesov.,
0 et el
W.D. M'. 1-956)';'AT
0*,", )ve"W"ton & s6it' i04 F. Supp, 10 165' (T).' DO.!
n n a PPC*-519 FF.2d, 31
lMi ; 0 _A:6474 ObWi e t 1 Oil, N V.
iiJ05 ,ihe*Vifth Cir d FPC'
&iit z voide an
c 88 to material s s mi
6 4- P it-o' pAlic ac e 1- -, b itted F.., I Y,
V 11
r O'natu a gas compa i-es'*Iii-ch contained "deincluding the names of'
)&A'11[ and ioe'ation sale pressure bas'e
hi f6l Tid-, pri'e :, terihs and, data
P11+1 s es Um A wit
re lit 6f su' I ." The Court held that such
:arar=06n ibli 1 in sqtarey vith freedom of Infor-lnWoii"Act's" r'ade secret" exelAption ftom'public disrea*s6nink that'' disclosure '"'would Iter i dusfryqHt -Cqiid ex iA relations ip to the, d advantage of
thiopnei Is.
pe ffipetitive posific is." 519 F.2d at 35.
af% 1 amiil levabiati6nof the Hardin Affidavit supra,,t
WYEli del ieii o 0 the findings of the National GeoJ. 10 e
n d c ns'der 1
aflon of the cases discussed
. U: 71 Y
SUVq _t& Mift is 'ofthe opinionthat t least-that porgn 0 e data 141 issue detailing 'Ashland's natural'gasMerv,ArA.imates:,,coitistitutes,,,"trade secret" information
0 P 86etion, 6 f the FTC, Act.
v v-:"
N power: Conzresw is not-,
'MM OU in e. c9tirts have-.
Atfly vq li6d -Iri"the legis..,
rii as 'Won, -o' er
ag. portions,

or the Constitution.. cai:vPwe427V.335 161 (1927) ; see ah~ neso 4Dn# U.S.) 204 (1821); ;~ie tts Y uey 4 ',1 46 (1953).: Absent. suA oi-,a,1pstvebd cu not "wisely or effcie1" vha toeoqt "which the legislatioisitnetoafcorhng. McGrain: v. Daughter at45
Although the inveigtrpoeisipntai6wnfar-reaching" in scop,

7"eoluisr ,the full. -eqmmittee' reslution by,.vhich the
pi e was gth 1 pd to proee, an dth t andcoz~xtpf the tlegialative proce edings.' TWatkn v. U~nke:,Sas, supra,'.354 1U.S., at 209-15; Barefe latthv Unite:S4tf, supra, 360 ULS., at 117; see alogUk Staes Basely, supra, 345 U.S., at 41, Badeer v.Uie
U.S. M7 (1958). And deciding t pei
the specific inquiries need only be reasonbly r lated o h pmjor ,ybjept matter area under investiga tiol.S~lar v. United States, 2179 U..263, 299 (1.923) ingu the foregoing l1egal prinipl's to the facts o theprsent case, we note first, tht the broad subject n~ttr areas which the Subcpmmit ee is investigating
n~tiq~a9 enryplc, atural gas supply r and prduc tiox theneed foremegency natural gas legislabion and -th xle ffedr4agenqies in: national energy affairsarearas conunitted. to the Subconunttee's ju-risdiction by pore Conagressional authorization.
Il of: the Rules of the House of Representatives (Ath ong,.gives the House Conunittee on Interstate an&.>reign. Comunerce jurisdiction over, inter alia 4 ine~sate: and foreign conuerce generally," "interstate oilcopacts and petroleum and natural gas except on Plblc.ands," and "consumer affairs and consumer protecton' House Rule X, (pl(L) (1), (3) and (8). The CQP=4ee .has extensive oversight responsibilities. inclue.....y o eiw n td o otnun ai

th %pleto, diitrto, xcton n ffcie
of~~~zexistiiag ~ ~ ~ lgsainad"ncoitnsr ir
OWAt~ew i ma niaeteneest rd*
e r ditoa leisainwtn

ti.Juidctp-ftecmmte.'os,"ueX b

Over Jrht an dsto ation 01 ifie, Witirl"AdictibAl inte4
allod, to. 60ordinate ihts. Vofk *ith the''Wbrkbf ihoI f
oith6 ta dju be 1 nmitf hfid t
r s n g Su
regular 6 Mm1M1LC0,#Qn 'With -standWk stibcoTh"A&4
f. U066
in -ord6r' to oh ta':o'4Av1,ce On subj ec 8 f br inves. n*
A resoliAlon. agreed" to""by th-6 -fWl "id-offimitt 6 6n, VA ,rua I ry, 26,. 19 5 VAAE91 6 th6 JuAMilAion Jof '4,1 e -Siftb
coni-mittee as 0116NVS,:
U Oil: U e SIbilit f 6f etwgnt
'1' grams I-viftlAn, th6
agendas ep;artinotts 'afid a P o
e U C lee, a diict
su C'h:1:n igati'ons" ith Ld6h 14dict'
V68 t -vn in
Pur -guant '6'. the' autl 6rft of these' An&.* th
I V.
,-eso u I eb 2 10 4 751 ahdAn otder t C a
I t biri, Of V uary
s. e a, ive review tun 0 ide '2U:'S. C 490d,
A exteli..;
f1he Subconunittee" o'n' A iill 177;'1'975 PPr6"Ved h, i to,:.,. t ".fi': i p 1. o i fieAll in hidiri ,
s ve study'' of na- iona e, e gy olicy, 9 6ci C
the subj ect of "natural* ga siipplleg aftd. onirtauriiehfAj
of natural gas'. -Uhde'f ; flie 90,os of ;.th6 ffou 0 of Rep r esentatives and'; A' fiabb. V6861U'fio'n ''Of tficiA.114 C
mittee pona. po er: P
Subc''nulnittee has' -sub e w: "' t'O'lMm
attendance of wftnos es,.aiid'pr'odiietio':of"doc'qthtintg*ffi'
furtherance of such, an 'in vMsAig6ti011.1_,Vh s U _bpbenot fil, e '-thb ..:ftU
this ease was' issfied by 'th "Subcommittiee to
pursuant to. 014t -enabling r6solut ion,
Second, we note' that the c6tnmittee, aifd" S Ibdotii ifftb6i
arecleArly engaged in a valid Ieigislati*e, Qrpo6 1 ivith"
respe I ct to the pre'sent'study of O'nerg :rbbl'
yp efns,)ftAt iftll
gas supply And p: reduction natu rAl gas legig
nation and ther6l' of the Fede-ral Trade COM'Missibn Ihe
Federal Power. Commission, 'and Pith er' Ag' xes I re
responsible for national energy policy. 'The bro'a': d -s:u:bj 'A"
matters under investigation have direct-relation ol ending legislation to the decisioinwhother: or h6t 'to Tle-gqS..,
Section 19W requires, inter tilft, thateach standlvgcwn*ttel of.tbfi:Cbxj! gress "shall review and study, ou a continuing basis, t4e Apocation, administrat1on and execution of those laws, or parts of la, P*. thie'80160 iiiatter of which Is wi thin: the J jurisdiction of that committee. 10 The House committee on Interstate and Fq"Ign Coqunierce eed resolution on April 17v '1975, wh1eh gave tbb gSubcobultb* giualw0f to ve im by subpoena the attendance of witnesses and jFoductlop. oF, cipcu aeiatv. of, Rule XT, j 2: (m) (94th: Cong.).
Seeg e.g.9 H.R. 9464t 94th Congo, 1st Sess.

.J e9e

.gnt et tI fai ti, g on of las'b, fdra iea r IBa4 q pe impc nth in Aiiwl oet andy national ener t poiy.Tea
aO daat tthio ofphete An,,nl1Ace, 111 e l on mafittlyfi~t
-pqil~rinquiy direce t o tese a'TC" peirains to ihe~~i don sbec aterito tr, -hepopoedH~is NaturGa
>ortd bythe ull onuntte and sucurreetaishsathioe the ulcoue an is apost mittoe1 arin ea o netigatio sply-nd pregarding thoe naturalC gso & ther fderatagnciesiwithtrespect cur ky o teodtior en f natural 'gas spi-o fedra l'n's:relegistimacy inofte spcfiquesir tof whther nat~~>e ratg~ ir~ 6 ified byhlthefull House whc auearosvoenereeintisatint

act* and that gT nf of Authcifityig itself." 'Safficient
to show that the, investligatiolmil lc ,Ohi nlittee 'has ernba'tked "c(nc&ft6d vC ubjbet Wft iwhich 'legislation could be had'," ..Eastland v. United; "Statei Servicemen.0 s PUnd,'supra, 421 S. at5Wi MiGiwiis v. Daugherty,, 273 V.S.) at: 177;'see: aidd 0111 Munist P4,4y v. Control -Voa d, "367U. S-9. !'(1961) 0,
Tho factorsAo be. eon4&red: b m" its. deferMination.,of .-Y he.'ther, to': gxant inji nctive rei ef We' Ke articulated, by, Oe Couxt f, 4peals. Columbia per Burger, J., in Virginia kT
As&oeiation v.! Fedpral. PpTe,,r GQmmis' P211
.925 (D.C. Cir., 1958).. Tlie. Cqurt,,Aated-,-.
Essentially, four factiprs iAWI Pe QU 46SW
(1). ilas the petitioner made, a strqng, sho, fit 14
he islikv -y to prevail on themerits? as
the petitioner shawn that withoiitlsu 4,,-r6l ef..i ,,-*W be irreparably, ured 9. M, Pu14 the.jjpsu
ance of a ially. harm PaitiAQ,
Aay substant pthe:rinterested, in the proceed-m'g,? ftef' Jies
the public interestl:
Since'' the CO'TIA believes, the second-elpment of
test to be dispositive ,of. the pxesexit action,. we. f6cus 04T attention on the requirement that thelP debman77
strate, irreparable. 'ury in tl e absence of aja ju4c.&n.
Injunctive relief is appropriate, onV' to..Jar vent--,
isting or presently threatei;iod injur es') aiA W'W not be granted against something merely fear das...: le to
occur at some ite time in the futuxe,",-Co"..ectieW
v. Massachusetts, 282 USP 6609 674 (1930). S.ep alsoo Gen eral Fireproofing Company v. Wyman, 444 R, 2d. 391 393 (2d Cir. L971). Injunctions will not begranted where the m'juries complained of are prospective and "which may, indeed never occur." Criminins v. Amenc-an St.ockFtmhatsge, Inc., 346 F. Supp. L266 (S.R. NX.
1972). The *mplained of iwt- be of such i**4nence that there is a "clear and present" need for

eRAe .A67* AeA/ 99WO A-VV 'see also Assn fzP oewna
esne oi ~y f America, W93
I. 6 And tho gaink showIk
bt arble-ijuy i ioo dliedn dat s & ly Iby virtue 16f aimallemg ilton.o sitatttor t or edonstitutioalrf~hs (mlss te reuireme has been::speciically

siLtors may not, resort to a. court of equity to. reft*in a -threittened act merely because it is illegal transcends constitutional. powers: but the act comIie:ut nlc upon them some irreparable iny278 TES. t 310 (Stone, J.).'
_96 IWorvNe tem S.-S. COrp; v.i UnAited States, 107 F. Spp (KI.14NY.), aff'd., 344 T.Si 901; Ellis Raw Bar v.
DishtdAf:Cotumbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 4 33
F. 2d543 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
0 j 1whle Ashlird coaIches its concernss in tems of ",public .asure,.'any- ivreparable injury 'to it /would result, Tw~rereisely, in diselosure to its competitors. Certainly, tuc. i ury might logically ?result as well from general Iefar Moeoer t e

Comgiessi e g a gfip of.t 9,wrosi w7- y4q t. 'Prosite suhta4d .wsert-g I oA indiffrpp-0
'weld prlaat intns tof Aqe origintin fee:Adk (AfyAtarito.,itlyslel g-v InevIs~b.oin4
Dismiss).p A9) Ihnrma iastougl .conse, As
represen ed: .. to e .*).i ;f > .. ..
Of ous t -Sumasite 4oe f* ek.pbia
tn poio r comtentht Ashland's- tt e~es tsestrely er dctio wofl beootuenlsnemiaet. r agree-,.Ps Whieal th suipeen ap reportsobnsratneross. to Ahselacmstcs poitio o notionea totiamiss p. 6). .
-isolaeite I instances pthle pastinihity ppese hate fteO~ng pro v a ay 4hntio b Pae mbuffici ent, ooecm t etioPng eestg n ateUh

Cogesirooiaon Menpa Mad pl
ro; reevsimts whiffch adbnsenere, t he los ofilt Oil OinGdion's etmat fotehyta2 il ere diqse inno iniato, glatth 5u p. .4 4 loald trlegase r nsrvetmatesn welspubishat' p.o 8--TO2177- Dis-ss7 4355And ChR~aran M~ors, th oueghrn co nl,: hrigh anduInestgios the Supcmitte ~te ue Fre gopropervulce, (c)In Ahland'gystadetsenrs; t1p theks mharelyug y laindetiigue atcption of Arderentan companies andinhial nte o-called "Ar b ottnfsael (which aerials habe n u M ote t 1rh0

deAlntiality) es mealIMsta~ne ]ntblelgpaastahc t aparsinghtt e ther
-one sCitall bekhdteto'a teagremet de trSctinonaestlt o auc dislitaid'fW e~l dat )a, Cogea n Mos s rase suct proiea r inmor atio to. t? e se ab a a


Weighing all of these considerations, it appears to the Court, on balance, that the. irreparable injury which Ashland seeks this Court to prevent by the issuance of permanent injunctive relief is neither "presently threatened" nor "imminent." The injuries complained of are, rather, "prospective" in nature and "may, indeed, never occur." See Crimmins v. American Stock Exchange, supra.
If irreparable injury cannot be established, and we hold that it has not been established in this -case, injunctive relief is not warranted. It follows that the Court need not consider the other factors outlined in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association supra, nor need we reach the merits of Ashland's complaint, nor dispose of the arguments and counter arguments propounded by the parties in support of their respective positions.
The foregoing constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (a).

it is, accordingly, by the Court this 2nd day of February, 1976,
Ordered'. That plaintiff's motion for preliminary and permanent injunction should be, and the same is hereby, denied. And it is further
Ordered, That defendants' motion to dismiss should be and the same is hereby, granted. And it is further
Ordered That the temporary restraining order entered in this action should be, and the same is hereby, dis solved. A-nd it is further
Ordered That the effect of this order should be and the same is hereby, stayed until the expiration of ten
(10) days from the entry thereof, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 (a).

69-706 0 76 7


Civil Action No. 74-1852

OF THE PRESS, et al,

January 7, 1976

Herbert J. Miller, Esquire
Raymond G. Larroca, Esquire
Martin D. Minsker, Esquire
William H. Jeffress, Jr., Esquire
R. Stan Mortenson, Esquire
2555 M Street, Northwest, Suite 500
Washington, D. C. 20037

Rex Le, Esuir

John T. Bee sur


Robert E. Herzstein, Esure
Andrew S. Krulwkch,Esur Peter T. Grossi, Jr sur
Leonard B. Simo qur

William A. DobrovirEqur
Andra N.,A, B


John H. F. Satc;sdr
Melvin L.