Gravel v. United States

Last updated
Gravel v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19–20, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972
Full case nameGravel v. United States
Citations408 U.S. 606 ( more )
92 S. Ct. 2614, 33 L. Ed. 2d 583, 1972 U.S. LEXIS 21
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Doe, 332 F. Supp. 930 (D. Mass. 1971); 455 F.2d 753 (1st Cir. 1972); cert. granted, 405 U.S. 916(1972).
Holding
The privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist
DissentStewart (in part)
DissentDouglas
DissentBrennan, joined by Douglas, Marshall
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I § 6, cl. 1

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process. [1]

Contents

History

On Tuesday, June 15, 1971, Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) received a copy of the Pentagon Papers from Ben Bagdikian, an editor at The Washington Post. [2] Over the next several days, Gravel (who was dyslexic) was assisted by his congressional office staff in reading and analyzing the report. [2] Worried his home might be raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Gravel smuggled the report (which filled two large suitcases) into his congressional office, which was then guarded by disabled Vietnam veterans. [2]

On the evening of June 29, 1971, Gravel attempted to read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. [3] A lack of a quorum, however, prevented the Senate from convening. [2] [3] As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Gravel convened a meeting of the subcommittee and spent an hour reading part of the Pentagon Papers into the record. [2] Prevented by his dyslexia from continuing, Gravel had the remainder of the Pentagon Papers entered into the record. [2] [3]

Gravel subsequently arranged to have the Pentagon Papers published by a private publisher. The publisher was Beacon Press, a non-profit book publisher owned by the Unitarian Universalist Association. [3]

A federal grand jury was subsequently empaneled to investigate possible violations of federal law in the release of the report. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers. Senator Gravel intervened and asked a court to quash the subpoena, contending that forcing Rodberg to testify would violate the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution. [4]

A district court refused to grant the motion to quash but did agree to proscribe certain questions. [5] The trial court also held that publication of the Pentagon Papers by a private press was not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. [5] The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling (although it modified the categories of barred questions). [6] The United States appealed the barring of questions, and Senator Gravel appealed the ruling regarding publication. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. [7]

Majority holding

In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the court of appeals and substituting its own, the court declared that "the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself." [8] However, the Court refused to protect congressional aides from prosecution for criminal conduct, or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third party crimes. [9] The Supreme Court also threw out the lower courts' order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute. [10]

However, the Court upheld the district court's ruling regarding private publication. "[Private] publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence." [11]

Dissents

Associate Justice Potter Stewart dissented in part, concluding that the Court had too narrowly construed the protections granted by the Speech or Debate Clause. Justice Stewart would have extended the protections of the clause to cover testimony before a grand jury about preparing for legislative acts as well. [12]

In his dissent, Associate Justice William O. Douglas argued that the private publication was an adjunct of speech or debate function of Senator Gravel, and was therefore protected speech. He further condemned politicians for excessive secrecy and the media for largely failing to challenge it:

The story of the Pentagon Papers is a chronicle of suppression of vital decisions to protect the reputations and political hides of men who worked an amazingly successful scheme of deception on the American people. They were successful not because they were astute, but because the press had become a frightened, regimented, submissive instrument, fattening on favors from those in power and forgetting the great tradition of reporting. To allow the press further to be cowed by grand jury inquiries and prosecution is to carry the concept of "abridging" the press to frightening proportions. [13]

In his dissent, Associate Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. disagreed with the majority's narrow construction of the Speech or Debate Clause, and defined a much broader conception of the right. Brennan was joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall. [13]

Significance

The case is considered a landmark for not only reaffirming the constitutional protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause, but for narrowing it as well. [14] [15] [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress

Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights, civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Often considered as one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

<i>Pentagon Papers</i> U.S. defense report on 1945–1967 U.S. involvement in Vietnam

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study, they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971. A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration had "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mike Gravel</span> American politician (1930–2021)

Maurice RobertGravel was an American politician who served as a United States Senator from Alaska from 1969 to 1981 as a member of the Democratic Party, and who later in life twice ran for the presidential nomination of that party.

Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically, the bribery of a U.S. senator or U.S. representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a congressional committee or subcommittee—usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of requested documents.

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Beacon Press</span> American non-profit book publisher

Beacon Press is an American left-wing non-profit book publisher. Founded in 1854 by the American Unitarian Association, it is currently a department of the Unitarian Universalist Association. It is known for publishing authors such as James Baldwin and Viktor Frankl, as well as The Pentagon Papers.

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. The case was argued February 23, 1972, and decided June 29 of the same year. The reporters lost their case by a vote of 5–4. This case is cited for the rule that in federal courts, a reporter may not generally avoid testifying in a criminal grand jury, and is one of a limited number of cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the use of reporters' privilege.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to the state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel Brewster</span> American politician

Daniel Baugh Brewster Jr. was a Democratic member of the United States Senate, representing the State of Maryland from 1963 until 1969. He was also a member of the Maryland House of Delegates from 1950 to 1958, and a representative from the 2nd congressional district of Maryland in the United States House of Representatives from 1959 to 1963.

The Privileges or Immunities Clause is Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution. Along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, this clause became part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel is associated with the clause.

Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution. The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress "shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William J. Jefferson corruption case</span> United States corruption case

The corruption case against then Louisiana Representative William J. Jefferson in the United States started on a suspicion of bribery. The FBI raided his Congressional offices in May 2006. He was re-elected to his seat in the fall. On June 4, 2007, a federal grand jury indicted Jefferson on sixteen charges related to corruption. Jefferson was defeated by Republican Joseph Cao on December 6, 2008, and was the most senior Democratic incumbent to lose re-election that year. In 2009 he was tried in the US District Court in Virginia on corruption charges. On August 5, 2009, he was found guilty of 11 of the 16 corruption counts. Jefferson was sentenced to 13 years on November 13, 2009 - the longest sentence ever given to a representative for bribery or any charge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waite Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1874 to 1888

The Waite Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1874 to 1888, when Morrison Waite served as the seventh Chief Justice of the United States. Waite succeeded Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Waite served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Melville Fuller was nominated and confirmed as Waite's successor.

Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550 U.S. 511 (2007) is a United States Supreme court case in which the court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act. This case was the first Speech or Debate Clause case the Supreme Court took up since 1979.

References

  1. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "How the Pentagon Papers Came to be Published by the Beacon Press: A Remarkable Story Told by Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Dem Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel and Unitarian Leader Robert West." Democracy Now. July 2, 2007. Accessed June 14, 2008.
  3. 1 2 3 4 "Preface." In The Pentagon Papers: The Defense Department History of United States Decisionmaking on Vietnam. Vol. 1. Senator Gravel Edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.
  4. ↑ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 608–609.
  5. 1 2 United States v. Doe, 332F. Supp.930 (D. Mass.1971).
  6. ↑ United States v. Doe, 455F.2d753 (1st Cir.1972).
  7. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 405 U.S. 916(1972).
  8. ↑ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 622, 627.
  9. ↑ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 622.
  10. ↑ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 627–629.
  11. ↑ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625.
  12. ↑ Gravel, 408 U.S. at 629.
  13. 1 2 Gravel, 408 U.S. at 633.
  14. ↑ "Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate Clause". Yale Law Journal . 88 (6): 1280–1298. 1979. doi:10.2307/795632. JSTOR   795632.
  15. ↑ "The Speech or Debate Clause Protection of Congressional Aides". Yale Law Journal. 91 (5): 961–973. 1982. doi:10.2307/796073. JSTOR   796073.
  16. ↑ Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G. (2004). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints (5th ed.). Washington: CQ Press. ISBN   1-56802-822-9.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.