The D.C. Circuit's decision in Michel v. Anderson is not to the contrary. See Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (finding justiciable challenge by Representatives to House rule permitting delegates to vote in Committee of the Whole). Unlike the challenge brought by plaintiffs in Michel, which involved a formal rule adopted by the House, plaintiff here has not alleged, nor could he credibly allege, that either the Senate or the House has adopted any rule requiring a religious test on the office of the Chaplain. In the absence of such a rule or qualification, the Court would be compelled to examine the motives and basis of the Senate's and House's selection of their Chaplains to decide whether those selections resulted in an unconstitutional religious test - an examination that places plaintiff s religious test claim squarely into the heart of the political question doctrine.
Accordingly, plaintiffs religious test claim should be dismissed as non-justiciable.
C.    Plaintiffs Challenge to the Selection of Congressional Chaplains Is Barred by Legislative Immunity
Judicial review of plaintiffs religious test claim based on alleged discrimination in the selection of House and Senate Chaplains is also precluded by the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. The Speech or Debate Clause provides that, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place." U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 1. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this clause provides immunity from suit for "anything 'generally done in a session of the House by one of its members in relation to the business before it.'" Doe v. McMillan, 412 U.S. 306, 311 (1973) (quoting Kilboum v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168,204 (1881)); see also Eastlandv. United States Servicemen's Fund,A2\ U.S. 491, 501 (1975) (immunity covers those actions that "fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity"); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606,618 (1972). This immunity serves
-31-