D.C. Circuit· 4/19/2019

Daniel Barker v. Patrick Conroy

Citations

921 F.3d 1118

How courts have described this case

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

holding that U.S. House of Representatives may constitutionally exclude atheists from giving invocation
explaining that on “appeal from the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, ‘we must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint’” (quoting LaRoque v. Holder, 650 F.3d 777, 785 (D.C. Cir. 2011))
noting that “‘making the Rules . . . [is] a power that the Rulemaking Clause reserves to each House alone’” (quoting United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1306–07 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
rejecting the contention that the Establishment Clause requires a legisla- ture to “allow secular as well as religious prayer”
describing the “authorizing [of] an investigation” as an “act[] protected by the Speech or Debate Clause” (cleaned up)
giving the House’s interpretation of its own rules controlling effect even though the interpretation was adopted after the plaintiff sued about the rule

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tatel, Edwards, Ginsburg

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.