32. What is the most appropriate ground for the court to dismiss the purchasing officer's complaint?

Article I, Section 6 provides that «for any Speech or Debate in either House, [members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place.» In general terms, this so-called Speech and Debate Clause shields members of Congress from: (i) civil or criminal suits relating to their legislative actions and (ii) grand jury investigations relating to those actions. Conduct that occurs in the regular course of the legislative process and the motivation behind that conduct are immune from prosecution. Speeches and publications made outside Congress are not protected.

Generally, sovereign immunity means that the federal government cannot be sued without its consent. Suits against a federal officer are deemed to be brought against the United States itself if the judgment sought would be satisfied out of the public treasury or would interfere with public administration and, therefore, are not permitted. However, specific relief against an officer as an individual will be granted if the officer acted ultra vires: (i) beyond his statutory powers, or (ii) the valid power was exercised in an unconstitutional manner.

D is correct. The Speech and Debate Clause is the most appropriate ground for dismissing the complaint because it immunizes members of Congress from conduct that occurs during the normal course of the legislative process. The Clause, therefore, shields the U.S. Senator from liability for defamation as a result of making the speech on the floor of the Senate.

A is incorrect. This is not the most appropriate ground for dismissing the complaint. While it is true that generally, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government has to consent to be sued, here this will not be the best basis for dismissal. Lawsuits against an individual acting as an officer are permitted, absent consent, when the officer acted ultra vires, meaning beyond his statutory powers or acted within those powers in an unconstitutional manner. It could be argued that by negligently making a baseless claim on the Senate floor, the Senator was acting ultra vires, and thus would not be protected by sovereign immunity.

B is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the law. Although members of Congress enjoy First Amendment freedoms, this is not a basis for having «an unqualified right to speak on matters of public concern at any place and time without having to fear adverse legal consequences.» Although they are immunized under the Speech and Debate Clause when acting in the scope of their duties, they remain accountable in other circumstances, such as with speeches and publications made outside Congress, which are not protected.

C is incorrect. Again, the First Amendment is not the correct source of law for the immunity enjoyed by congressmen during the scope of their duties; the Speech and Debate Clause, as explained above, is the most appropriate ground for immunizing the Senator from potentially defamatory remarks made in the speech on the floor of the Senate.