The opinion
BAZELON, Chief Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
The majority concludes that the activities of the defendant are conducted under the authority of a rule of the House of Representatives rather than under the authority of an Act of Congress. I disagree. By incorporating Rule XI into the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812 , Congress established a dual authorization for the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The Committee itself has not hesitated to state that it derives its mandate from an Act of Congress as well as from rules of the House. 1 In my view, therefore, this case does involve an injunction to restrain enforcement of an Act of Congress and falls within the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 2282. 2 The fact that plaintiffs are also trying to enjoin enforcemént of a *120 rule of the House does not render § 2282 inoperative.
The majority suggests that even if defendants’ activities are conducted under the authority of the Legislative Reorganization Act, that statute is not the type of Act Congress had in mind when it required the convocation of a three-judge court. Section 2282, however, speaks of “any Act of Congress,” and neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has provided us with sufficient guidance to carve out exceptions to it.
Accordingly, I dissent from my brethren’s view that a three-judge court lacked jurisdiction in this case.
. See, e.g., House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Annual Report for the Tear 1961, 145, stating that the Committee “has a statutory basis in Public Law. 601 — the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 — as well as in the Rules of the House of Representatives.” The report also spoke of “the purpose of Congress in the creation of this committee” and of the “congressional mandate.” Ibid. [Emphasis added] See also House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Annual Report for the Year 1963, 123.
. Every publication of the Committee begins with the recital that “The legislation under which the House Committee on Un-American Activities operates is Public Law 601, 79th Congress [1946]; 60 Stat. 812 * * *.”
. I think, therefore, that it is unnecessary to decide whether there may be circumstances in which a rule of the House or Senate could be regarded as an Act of Congress for purposes of § 2282. See Methodist Fed’n for Social Action v. Eastland, 141 F.Supp. 729 (D.D.C.1956), where a three-judge court took jurisdiction to decide a case challenging the validity of a Senate Concurrent Resolution. See especially opinion of Wilkin, J., dissenting on other grounds, id., at 736 .