EXPLANATORY NOTE The following summaries represent an attempt to highlight the most important-and relevant-principles of law involved in each case. They are not intended to be exhaustive of all issues raised or decided during the litigation. It is important to note that many of these cases are pending or are on appeal, and therefore that the holding of the court may be reversed or modified in the future. If the case has not been closed, its status is shown in brackets following the summary. In instances where the court has not yet rendered a decision, the most significant issues raised in the litigation have been indicated. Allen v. Department of Defense [Not Reported] (D.D.C. 1981) There is no authority or necessity for retaining the Clerk of the House of Representatives as a party defendant in a Freedom of Information Act suit seeking agency documents relating to a House Committee investigation. Remaining issue raised.-Do copies of correspondence or records of communications between the Department of Defense and the CIA and the House Select Committee on Assassinations relating to the Select Committee's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy, or other Department of Defense or CIA documents pertaining to the Committee's investigation, constitute Congressional-and therefore nondisclosable-records under the Freedom of Information Act? [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] Allen v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) Issues raised.-(1) Do copies of correspondence or records of communication between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the House Select Committee on Assassinations relating to the Select Committee's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy, or other FBI documents pertaining to the Committee's investigation, constitute Congressional—and therefore nondisclosable— records under the Freedom of Information Act? (2) Is the release of such records and documents barred by the Speech or Debate Clause and/or the Publications Clause of the U.S. Constitution? [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] American Family Life Assurance of Columbus v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (S.C. N.Y. County, N.Y.) Issues raised.—(1) Are Congressional committee staff members liable under a conspiracy theory in a defamation suit arising out of their actions during a committee investigation? (2) What constitutes proper service of process on Congressional defendants in a suit in state court in New York? [This case is pending in the State Supreme Court in New York County, N.Y.] Benford v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. [Not Reported] (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 102 S. Ct. 612 (1981) (1) The surreptitious taping of a meeting between Congressional committee staff investigators and an individual under investigation, and the subsequent broadcast of portions of the taped meeting on national network news are not absolutely protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution since they are not an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes of the committee. (2) The "informing function" of Congress cannot be used as a justification for protecting the publication of materials injurious to private individuals. [This case is pending in U.S. District Court, although these holdings are final.] Bodenmiller v. Stanchfield (S.C. Suffolk County, N.Y.) Issue raised.-Are a Member of Congress and his staff aide absolutely immune from liability for common law torts such as slander as long as they are acting within the scope of their authority? [This case is pending in the State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, N.Y.] Bonior v. Stockman [Not Reported] (D.D.C. 1982) A complaint filed by Members of Congress and others will be dismissed as moot when the challenged Executive branch actions have ceased being implemented, no damages are sought, and there is no reasonable expectation that the actions in question will be repeated. [This case is pending in U.S. District Court.] Brown v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. [Not Reported] (E.D. Va. 1981) Counts of a complaint charging Congressional committee staff members and others with violations of the Federal eavesdropping statute, invasion of privacy, and defamation (arising out of their actions during a committee investigation) will be dismissed if not brought within the applicable statute of limitations. [This case is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.] Chadha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. granted, 102 S.Ct. 87 (1981) The legislative veto provision of section 244(c)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows either house of Congress to override decisions of the Attorney General to grant suspension of deportation, usurps essential functions of the executive and judicial branches and is therefore unconstitutional under the separation of powers doctrine. [This case is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court.] Common Cause v. Bolger (formerly Bailar, formerly Klassen), 512 F. Supp. 26 (D.D.Č. 1980) (1) "Prudential considerations" will not bar an action challenging the administration of the Congressional franking statute on constitutional and statutory grounds where the case does not involve major, discretionary policy decisions but rather involves decisions by the Postmaster General and Secretary of the Treasury to implement specific statutory language. (2) In such a suit, the Speech or |