Speech or Debate Clause

Last updated

The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that "The Senators and Representatives" 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."

Contents

The intended purpose is to prevent a U.S. President or other officials of the executive branch from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the president might disagree. It also protects members from civil suits related to their official duties. [1]

A similar clause in many state constitutions protects members of state legislatures. Legislators elsewhere in the world are often similarly protected under the doctrine of parliamentary immunity.

Case law

Gravel v. United States: congressional aides and private publication

On 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 Senate office, which was being 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 arranged to have the Pentagon Papers published by a private publisher, Beacon Press, a nonprofit book publisher owned by the Unitarian Universalist Association. [3]

A federal grand jury was 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. [4] A federal 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]

In Gravel v. United States , 408 U.S. 606 (1972), the Supreme Court held (5–4) that the privileges of the Speech or Debate Clause extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held, "the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself". [8]

The Court refused to protect congressional aides either from prosecution for criminal conduct or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes. [9] The Supreme Court also vacated the lower court's order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute. [10]

The Supreme Court upheld the district court 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] [12] [13] [14]

The Gravel case narrowed the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause. [15]

United States v. Rayburn House Office Building: searches of congressional offices

In May 2006, the FBI raided the office of Representative William J. Jefferson, a Democratic congressman from Louisiana, in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill. [16] The raid took place during the fourteenth month of an investigation into Jefferson's business ventures in Africa.

The FBI raid prompted a bipartisan uproar, [17] with immediate objections from congressional leaders in both parties, who said that the raid was inappropriately aggressive and violated the Speech or Debate Clause. [16] In a statement, Republican Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert stated: "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case. Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress. Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years." [16] Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated that while "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation", investigations "must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent". [16] A number of legal experts stated that the raid was unconstitutional.

Jefferson challenged the raid as a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, and in 2007, in the case United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2113, Washington, D.C. 20515, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously ruled, 3–0, that the FBI's search was unconstitutional and ordered the FBI to return privileged documents seized in the raid. [17] [18] The court held that "the Congressman is entitled ... to the return of all materials (including copies) that are privileged legislative materials under the Speech or Debate Clause. Where the Clause applies its protection is absolute." [18] The FBI was allowed to retain non-privileged material. [17] [18] While the Justice Department used special "Filter Team" procedures to review documents to determine whether they were related to legislative activity, the court found that this "would not have avoided the violation of the Speech or Debate Clause because they denied the Congressman any opportunity to identify and assert the privilege with respect to legislative materials before their compelled disclosure to Executive agents." [18]

The Supreme Court declined to review the D.C. Circuit's decision. [19] Jefferson was later convicted on the basis of other, unrelated evidence; in 2009, he was found guilty of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering in connection with his acceptance of bribes and payoffs in connection with these ventures; he was acquitted of several other charges. [20]

Wuterich v. Murtha: defamation actions arising from comments made in legislative role

In August 2006, U.S. Representative John Murtha was sued by U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Frank D. Wuterich, over statements that Murtha had made to reporters about the Haditha massacre, [21] an incident in Haditha, Iraq in which 24 civilians were killed after U.S. troops under Wuterich, a squad leader, opened fire. [22] (Wuterich was later court-martialed, and pleaded guilty to one count of negligent dereliction of duty in connection with the Haditha killings in a plea agreement with military prosecutors, following an investigation begun in March 2006. [22] [23] )

In his 2006 complaint, Wuterich sued Murtha, alleging that the congressman's comments to the press that the Haditha killings constituted "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" were defamatory and an invasion of privacy. [21] [24] The remarks were made at a press conference and in a follow-up television interview. [25] Wuterich also sought to compel Murtha to sit for a deposition in the civil case. [26]

In 2007, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that Murtha must testify in the defamation case; in response, commentators expressed concern that Murtha was acting as a lawmaker and was therefore protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. [25] Murtha appealed, arguing that because he was acting in his legislative role when making the comments he had immunity from the lawsuit under the Westfall Act. [27] [28] [29] The Westfall Act is a federal statute that "accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law tort claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties", and immunizes such employees by substituting the United States itself for the employee as defendant in a case. [29] [30] In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Murtha's favor, accepting his argument that he was acting in an official capacity, concluding that he was immune from suit, remanding the case to the district court and ordering dismissal of the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. [29] [31]

Mike Pence grand jury testimony

A judge ruled in 2023 that the Speech or Debate Clause applies to the vice president of the United States, in this case Mike Pence, whenever presiding over the Senate. [32]

See also

Related Research Articles

<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; prohibit the free exercise of religion; 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.

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship. Though the decision in the Slaughter-House Cases minimized the impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state law, the Supreme Court would later incorporate the Bill of Rights to strike down state laws on the basis of other clauses. In 2010, the Court rejected arguments in McDonald v. Chicago to overrule the established precedent of Slaughterhouse and decided instead to incorporate the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

The Pentagon Papers, officially titled The History of U.S. Decision-Making in Vietnam, 1945–1968, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1968. 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 Lyndon B. Johnson's 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 Robert "Mike" Gravel was an American politician and writer who represented Alaska in the United States Senate from 1969 to 1981 as member of the Democratic Party. Later in life, he twice made unsuccessful runs for U.S. presidential nominations.

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">John Murtha</span> American politician (1932–2010)

John Patrick Murtha Jr. was an American politician from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Murtha, a Democrat, represented Pennsylvania's 12th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 1974 until his death in 2010. He is the longest-serving member of the United States House of Representatives ever elected from Pennsylvania.

Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by members of certain legislatures, in which legislators are granted protection against civil or criminal liability for actions done or statements made in the course of their legislative duties. It is common in countries whose constitutions are based on the Westminster system.

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 state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security. United States v. Reynolds, which involved alleged military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Haditha</span> City in Al Anbar, Iraq

Haditha is a city in the western Iraqi Al Anbar Governorate, about 240 km (150 mi) northwest of Baghdad. It is a farming town situated on the Euphrates River at 34°08′23″N42°22′41″E. Its population of around 46,500 people, predominantly Sunni Muslim Arabs. The city lies near the Buhayrat al Qadisiyyah, an artificial lake which was created by the building of the Haditha Dam, the largest hydroelectric facility in Iraq.

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Haditha massacre</span> Killings committed by U.S. marines in 2005

The Haditha massacre was a series of killings on November 19, 2005, in which a group of United States Marines killed 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians. The killings occurred in the city of Haditha in Iraq's western province of Al Anbar. Among the dead were men, women, elderly people and children as young as 1, who were shot multiple times at close range while unarmed. The ensuing massacre took place after an improvised explosive device exploded near a convoy, killing a lance corporal and severely injuring two other marines. The immediate reaction was to seize 5 men in a nearby taxi and execute them on the street.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frank Wuterich</span> Participant in massacre of Iraqi civilians

Frank D. Wuterich is a former United States Marine Corps Staff Sergeant who pleaded guilty to negligent dereliction of duty as a result of his actions during the Haditha massacre where multiple innocent civilians were murdered. As a result of the plea agreement, he was reduced in rank to Private. He was given a general discharge in February 2012.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating due process rights

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution creates several constitutional rights, limiting governmental powers focusing on criminal procedures. It was ratified, along with nine other articles, in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

<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.

Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statements made by a Senator in newsletters and press releases were not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

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. ↑ "ArtI.S6.C1.1.3 Speech and Debate Privilege". Constitution Annotated. United States Congress. Retrieved 18 January 2021. to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators
  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 Decision making on Vietnam. Vol. 1. Senator Gravel Edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.
  4. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 608–609 (1972).
  5. 1 2 United States v. Doe, 332 F.Supp. 930 (Mass.1971).
  6. ↑ United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d 753 (CA1 1972).
  7. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 405 U.S. 916 (1972).
  8. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622, 627.
  9. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 622.
  10. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 627–629.
  11. ↑ Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625.
  12. ↑ 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 testify before a grand jury about preparing for legislative acts. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 629ff.
  13. ↑ 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. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 633ff.
  14. ↑ 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, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall, would also. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 633ff.
  15. ↑ "Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate Clause". Yale Law Journal. 88:6 (May 1979); "The Speech or Debate Clause Protection of Congressional Aides". Yale Law Journal. 91:5 (April 1982); Epstein, Lee and Walker, Thomas G. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. ISBN   1-56802-822-9
  16. 1 2 3 4 Eggen, Dan; Murray, Shailagh (May 23, 2006). "FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned". The Washington Post .
  17. 1 2 3 Lengel, Allan (August 4, 2007). "Rep. Jefferson Wins Ruling Against FBI". The Washington Post .
  18. 1 2 3 4 United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2113, Washington, D.C. 20515, 497 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
  19. ↑ Stout, David (March 31, 2008). "Justices Let Stand Ruling on Illegal F.B.I. Search". The New York Times .
  20. ↑ Stout, David (August 5, 2009). "Ex-Rep. Jefferson Convicted in Bribery Scheme". The New York Times .
  21. 1 2 Cullinan, Kathleen (April 14, 2009). "Murtha's immunity claim upheld in defamation suit". Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
  22. 1 2 Wilson, Stan; Martinez, Michael (January 24, 2012). "Marine in Haditha, Iraq, killings gets demotion, pay cut". CNN .
  23. ↑ Asser, Martin (31 May 2006). "What happened at Haditha?". BBC . Archived from the original on 16 Jul 2006. Retrieved 18 January 2021. on 9 March the top commanders in Baghdad began a criminal investigation
  24. ↑ Hefling, Kimberly (August 2, 2006). "Marine Sues Congressman for Defamation". The Washington Post . Associated Press.
  25. 1 2 Bresnahan, John (September 28, 2007). "Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case". Politico .
  26. ↑ Hefling, Kimberly (November 18, 2008). "House member argues for immunity from lawsuit". Associated Press.
  27. ↑ Hefling, Kimberly (November 18, 2008). "House member argues for immunity from lawsuit". Associated Press.
  28. ↑ Yachnin, Jennifer (18 November 2008). "Court to Rule on Protected Speech in Murtha Case". Roll Call . Retrieved 18 January 2021. is therefore protected under the Westfall Act... Instead, the government has moved to substitute the United States as the defendant in the case, effectively rendering it moot.
  29. 1 2 3 Wuterich v. Murtha , 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
  30. ↑ Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007)
  31. ↑ "Court: Marine can't sue Rep. Murtha for defamation". USA Today . Associated Press. April 14, 2009.
  32. ↑ Feinberg, Andrew (March 28, 2023). "Judge orders Pence to give evidence". The Independent . Retrieved December 11, 2023.


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.