Long v. Ansell
Headline: Court limits lawmakers’ immunity, rules members of Congress can be served with civil lawsuits while attending sessions and lets a libel suit against a Senator proceed.
Holding: The Court held that the constitutional privilege for members of Congress protects only against arrest and does not bar service of civil process while they attend sessions.
- Members of Congress are not immune from being served in civil lawsuits while attending sessions.
- Libel and other civil claims can proceed against lawmakers despite their attendance in Congress.
- Courts may deny motions to quash service based on claimed legislative immunity from process.
Summary
Background
Samuel T. Ansell, a resident of the District of Columbia, sued Huey P. Long of Louisiana for libel in the local federal court on March 27, 1933. The summons was served on the Senator within the District. Senator Long appeared only to ask the court to quash the summons, arguing that Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution gave members of Congress immunity not just from arrest but also from being served with civil process while attending the session of the Seventy-third Congress.
Reasoning
The lower courts denied the motion, and the Supreme Court reviewed the question. The Court examined the text, history, and past decisions and concluded the constitutional clause protects lawmakers from arrest but does not extend to service of civil process. The opinion noted neither the Senate nor the House had ever asserted a privilege against service and cited cases and historical statutes showing civil process applied to members. The Court also distinguished this rule from courtroom practice that protects witnesses or parties in one case from being served in another, which exists to meet court needs rather than to grant personal privilege.
Real world impact
As a result, civil suits like libel claims may be started or continued by serving a member of Congress while Congress is in session. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ denial of the motion to quash. The ruling allows such service to stand and lets the underlying case move forward, clarifying that the constitutional protection is limited and does not block ordinary civil procedure against lawmakers attending Congress.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?