Changes

The Court recognized elsewhere that "a private civil action, whether for an injunction or damages, creates a distraction and forces [legislators] to divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the litigation." ''Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund'', at 503. Although the [[separation of powers]] doctrine justifies a broader privilege for Congressmen than for state legislators in criminal actions, ''United States v. Gillock'', 445 U.S. 360 (1980), the Court has generally equated the legislative immunity to which state legislators are entitled under [[Section 1983]] to that accorded [[Congressmen]] under the [[Constitution]].

The Court recognized elsewhere that "a private civil action, whether for an injunction or damages, creates a distraction and forces [legislators] to divert their time, energy, and attention from their legislative tasks to defend the litigation." ''Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund'', at 503. Although the [[separation of powers]] doctrine justifies a broader privilege for Congressmen than for state legislators in criminal actions, ''United States v. Gillock'', 445 U.S. 360 (1980), the Court has generally equated the legislative immunity to which state legislators are entitled under [[Section 1983]] to that accorded [[Congressmen]] under the [[Constitution]].

* ''Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund'', at 502-503, 505, 506

* ''[[Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund]]'', at 502-503, 505, 506

* ''Dombrowski v. Eastland'', at 84-85

* ''Dombrowski v. Eastland'', at 84-85

* ''United States v. Johnson'', 383 U.S. 169, 180 (1966)

* ''United States v. Johnson'', 383 U.S. 169, 180 (1966)