Court rules Murtha “immune” from Haditha defamation lawsuit

From the decision:
http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2009/april/document.pdf

The law is clear that limited
discovery is permitted in a Westfall Act case only when a
plaintiff “allege[s] sufficient facts that, taken as true, would
establish that the defendant[’s] actions exceeded the scope of
[his] employment.” Stokes v. Cross, 327 F.3d 1210, 1215 (D.C.
Cir. 2003). Because Wuterich has failed to meet even this
minimal pleading burden, we vacate the District Court’s order
denying certification pending discovery and remand the case
with instructions to the District Court to substitute the United
States as the defendant in place of Congressman Murtha.
Because the United States has not waived its sovereign
immunity for Wuterich’s tort claims, the District Court will be
required to dismiss his complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

also:

The analysis of Wuterich’s allegations is controlled by this
court’s decision in Council on American Islamic Relations v.
Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006). In that case, the
Council on American-Islamic Relations sued Congressman Cass
Ballenger for defamation and slander after Congressman
Ballenger remarked that the organization was the “fund-raising
arm for Hezbollah” during a conversation with a reporter about
his separation from his wife. Id. at 662. The Government
certified that Congressman Ballenger was acting within the
scope of his employment.

and this:

Consequently, where a plaintiff fails to allege sufficient
facts to rebut the certification, the United States must be
substituted as the defendant because the federal employee is
absolutely immune from suit. The parties agree that if the
certification is not successfully rebutted in this case, Wuterich’s
action must be dismissed because his claims fall within the
FTCA’s exception for claims “arising out of . . . libel [or]
slander.”

and this:

Also instructive on this point is the court’s recent Westfall
Act decision in Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
In Wilson, the court upheld the District Court’s ruling that
defendant Bush Administration officials had acted within the
scope of their employment when they disclosed to the media the
previously covert agent status of Valerie Plame Wilson, whose
husband Joseph C. Wilson IV had been an outspoken critic of
the administration’s approach to intelligence issues. Case: 07-5379 Document: 01215614973 Page: 17

And:

Congressman Murtha’s alleged attempts to discredit
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s management of the war in Iraq,
no less than the comments of the Bush Administration officials
in the Wilson case, were directly tied to his congressional
political agenda and thus cannot support a claim that the
Congressman acted outside the scope of his employment.

lastly:

Another example is seen in the en banc court’s decision in
In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In re Cheney
involved suits filed by two nonprofit organizations against the
Vice President and other government officials, alleging that the
National Energy Policy Development Group was subject to the
Federal Advisory Committee Act’s (“FACA”) disclosure
requirements. Id. at 725-27. The District Court had largely
rejected the Government’s motion to dismiss pending discovery
that this court described as “overly broad” and “unbounded in
scope.” Id. at 727 (quoting Cheney, 542 U.S. at 386, 388). The
en banc court granted a writ of mandamus and ordered the case
dismissed, because the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for
relief under FACA. Id. at 728-31. Importantly, In re Cheney
unequivocally rejected the plaintiffs’ pleas for discovery in order
to find facts that would lend credence to their complaint.

So, the Murtha case was dismissed on the same grounds as the dismissal of the complaint against the Bush admin with respect to the Plame/Wilson affair, the energy lawsuit against VP Cheney, and the Council on American Islamic Relations charges of slander for being described as the “fund-raising
arm for Hezbollah”.

Murtha’s such an asshole.

We have similar laws in Australia, but protected comments must be made on the floor of parliament itself. If a politician went on the steps out front and said it to the press it’s no longer protected, but then we have stricter (many say too strict) libel laws than the USA.

Guess we confer ‘diplomatic’ immunity on so-called congressmen as soon as they leave the protection of the Capitol.

Murtha hates the war in Iraq and has done all he can to subvert it.

Glenn:

I’m was not a member of the armed services (deaf) but what you outline sounds like a start.

Let’s see a left wing dirtbag lawyer in this world.
Speaking as a member of the congress in his legislative duties, indeed.
I need to dig out the Manual For Courts Martial of The United States.

Yes, but I bet Congress has written the rules such that Congress trumps military.

This complaint may have made the Marines feel better but it was doomed from the start. There are very few slander/libel complaints against Congresscritters that would make it past the speech and debate clause of the US Constitution. Since most of us are constitutionalists here, while we find the acts of Murtha to be deplorable and reprehensible, the decision is proper and correct based upon the law and the constitution. As for waiting for Murtha to leave office, that wouldn’t solve the problem (even assuming he had left office within the Statute of Limitations period which probably has expired by now) because the acts were done while he was a Representative and his status at the time of the occurrence not the time of the litigation is the only relevant factor for immunity.

This is unbelievable — there are two sets of laws, one for us, one for the pols.

The question is whether or not it was truly part of his congressional duties. So far the legal system has said yes.
Hopefully there will be other challenges as it sure didn’t seem to be part of his “duty”.