their officers19 and speaking on the Senate and House floor-are at the center of what the Speech or Debate Clause protects. See Gravel, 408 U.S. at 617 (Speech or Debate immunity "equally cover[s]" "[c]ommittee reports, resolutions, and the act of voting" as it does actual speech or debate). Hence, plaintiffs Article VI religious test claim is barred by Speech or Debate Clause immunity.
Plaintiffs allegation of religious discrimination against non-theists in the election of chaplains, Compl. ^ 63, does not remove the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause. The Supreme Court has made clear "that in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act we do not look to the motives alleged to have prompted it.... '[Tjhe Speech or Debate Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process and into the motivation for those acts."' Eastland, 421 U.S. at 508 (quoting United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525 (1972)). Put simply, "once it is determined that Members are acting within the 'legitimate legislative sphere' the Speech or Debate Clause is an absolute bar to interference." Eastland, 421 U.S. at 503.20
19 The election of the Senate and House Chaplains is accomplished by resolution. See, e.g., S. Res. 70,104th Cong., 141 Cong. Rec. 2156 (1995) (enacted) (electing Dr. Lloyd Ogilvie as Senate Chaplain); H. R. Res. 1, 107th Cong., 147 Cong. Rec. H6 (daily ed. Jan. 3, 2001) (enacted) (electing Rev. Daniel P. Coughlin as House Chaplain).
20 The complaint is unclear as to what relief plaintiff seeks for his claims alleging violations of the Supremacy Clause and the Chaplain's oath of office. To the extent that these claims are attempts to control the House's and Senate's election of Chaplains, then these claims would similarly be barred by the political question doctrine and the Speech or Debate Clause, for the reasons discussed in the preceding two sections.
-33-