Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the FTCA barred an organization’s defamation claims because the United States had not waived sovereign immunity as to those claims
• holding that defendant’s conduct was at least partially motivated “by a legitimate desire to discharge his duty as a congressman”
• holding that a congressman’s “[s]peaking to the press during regular work hours in response to a reporter’s inquiry falls within the scope of a congressman’s authorized duties” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• “Speaking to the press during regular work hours in response to a reporter’s inquiry falls within the scope of a congressman’s ‘authorized duties.’ ”
• “Speaking to the press during regular work hours in response to a reporter’s inquiry falls within the scope of a congressman’s ‘authorized duties.’ ”
• explaining that a focus on whether the “allegedly defamatory statement itself was not conduct of the kind he is employed to perform” reflects “a misunderstanding of D.C. scope- of-employment law (not to mention the plain text of the Westfall Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).