on the Ohio River. In the first stage of the litigation, the Court issued an injunction requiring the defendant to remove or elevate the bridge. See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 626-27, 14 L.Ed. 249 (1851). After this earlier ruling, Congress passed a statute establishing the bridge as a post road and requiring vessels using the Ohio to avoid interfering with the structure. A storm then destroyed the original bridge, prompting the parties to return to the Court when the bridge company sought to rebuild. Pennsylvania attempted to interpose its original injunction, claiming that Congress lacked constitutional authority to reverse the effects of that injunction through subsequent legislation. The Court disagreed and 1 F.2d 811, 818 (D.C.Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). The Rufo Court'itself noted the distinction
holding that called party in  227b1 means the person subscribing to the called number at the time the call is made and not the intended recipient of the call holding that vulnerability to legislative alteration would seem to depend on the character of the compliance called for holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity holding that its appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the adjudication of administrative or legislative issues or controversies but rather only to decisions of a judicial character holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech rights