It appears that neither the Supreme Court nor any inferior court has addressed the question as I view it and the single holding from our court on which the majority almost exclusively relies to answer the question in the negative decides only the Clause's applicability to a civil subpoena obtained by private parties who sought certain files in the possession of a congressional subcommittee. The Executive does not argue otherwise; the search warrant sought only materials not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. Applying these principles, we conclude that the Congressman is entitled, as the district court may in the first instance determine pursuant to the Remand Order, to the return of all materials (including copies) that are privileged legislative materials under the Speech or Debate Clause. With him on the briefs were Amy Berman Jackson and Gloria B. Solomon. The property owner is not required to respond either orally or by physically producing the property, including records. Our holding regarding the compelled disclosure of privileged documents to agents of the Executive during the search makes clear that the special procedures described in the warrant affidavit are insufficient to protect the privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause. Const., art. Valley Fever Task Force (former counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate and scholars) at 28-29 (same). See United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366, 375 (D.C.Cir.2006) (carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 322 F.3d 718, 724 (D.C.Cir.2003))). See id. Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5301 The Supreme Court has made clear that the two elements of the privilege-Speech or Debate and question[ing]-must be read broadly to effectuate its purposes. United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180, 86 S.Ct. Only after failing to obtain the records through investigative means within Rep. Jefferson's ability to control did the government turn to a search warrant, which minimizes Rep. Jefferson's role-and his Fifth Amendment right. However, in Zurcher, the Supreme Court did not address whether a particular search was invalid because it was unconstitutional in its design and implementation; nor did it involve a privilege that absolutely shields records from non-voluntary disclosure. TTY: 202-225-1904. Gravel's holding that the Clause does not immunize Senator or aide from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes is replete with observations that the Clause provides no protection for criminal conduct performed at the direction of the [Member] or done without his knowledge by an aide. It is this aspect of the warrant's execution that Rep. Jefferson claims violated the Clause because it constituted impermissible question[ing] of him. On July 10, 2006, the district court denied the Congressman's motion for return of the seized materials. Leader McCarthy and Congressman Schweikert Host Valley Fever Roundtable, McCarthy and Schweikert Introduce Historic Valley Fever Legislation, McCarthy, Schweikert Request FDA Action on Valley Fever Drug and Vaccine Development, Valley Fever Task Force Co-Chairs Schweikert, McCarthy Celebrate Valley Fever Awareness Week in AZ, Rep. McCarthy, Sen. McSally, Rep. Schweikert, and Bipartisan, Bicameral Leaders Introduce FORWARD Act to Combat Valley Fever, Leader McCarthy and the House Valley Fever Task Force Support Immuno-Mycologics, Inc.s Bid for Grant Funding. at 119. at 659-61 (relying on Brown & Williamson because [t]he Supreme Court has not spoken).2 But Brown & Williamson's brief comments regarding the Clause in the criminal context-which comments importantly acknowledge the Clause's less categorical scope in that context3 -REMAIN DICTA NO MATter how profound. maj. op. of Stanley M. Brand et al. 2267 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC, 20515-5201 Phone: (202) 225-2646 Website: https://sablan.house.gov/ Full map view. 278 (1908) (quoting King v. Willkes, 2 Wils. I, 6, cl. For the reasons stated, absent any claim of disruption of the congressional office by reason of lack of original versions, it is unnecessary to order the return of non-privileged materials as a further remedy for the violation of the Clause. 2018, 2020, 167 L.Ed.2d 898 (2007); Johnson, 383 U.S. at 185 (With all references to [legislative material] eliminated [from the indictment], we think the Government should not be precluded from a new trial on this count, thus wholly purged of elements offensive to the Speech or Debate Clause.). Id. I, 6, cl. How that accommodation is to be achieved is best determined by the legislative and executive branches in the first instance.5 ALTHOUGH THE COURT has acknowledged, where it is not a member who is subject to criminal proceedings, that the privilege might be less stringently applied when inconsistent with a sovereign interest, see Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 419-20; supra note 4, this observation has no bearing here and is relevant, if at all, to the question of remedy for a violation, not the determination of whether a violation has occurred. This court, upon consideration of the Congressman's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal filed on July 20, 2006, enjoined the United States, acting through the Executive, from resuming its review of the seized materials. at JA 79-87. Unlike the majority, however, I believe that neither the Supreme Court nor Brown & Williamson holds that the Clause precludes Executive Branch execution of a search warrant. The majority is incorrect in suggesting that I fail[] to distinguish between the lawfulness of searching a congressional office pursuant to a search warrant and the lawfulness of the manner in which the search is executed. Maj. Op. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966)-another criminal case-as arising from the use of evidence of a legislative act to support the indictment. Although in Gravel the Court held that the Clause embraces a testimonial privilege, id. 1153 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). UNITED STATES v. RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ROOM 2113 WASHINGTON 20515. That holding prohibited the production of certain records in a congressional subcommittee's possession in response to a civil subpoena. The Congressman contends that the exercise of his privilege under the Clause must precede the disclosure of the contents of his congressional office to agents of the Executive and that any violation of the privilege requires return of all of the seized materials. Washington, D.C. 20515 Three days later, the court remanded the record to the district court to make findings regarding which, if any, documents (physical or electronic) removed from [the] Congressman['s] office pursuant to a search warrant executed on May 20, 2006, are records of legislative acts. Order of July 28, 2006 (Remand Order). WebEventbrite - East-West Center in Washington presents The Launch of "Taiwan Matters For America/America Matters for Taiwan" - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2060 (Please go to Horseshoe Drive Entrance), Washington, DC. 2136 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC, 20515-5101 Phone: (202) 225-8050 Website: https://norton.house.gov/ Full map view. Visit https://www.usbg.govfor more information about visiting the U.S. Botanic Garden. The public entrance to the U.S. Capitol is through the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. The filter team would determine: (1) whether any of the seized documents were not responsive to the search warrant, and return any such documents to the Congressman; and (2) whether any of the seized documents were subject to the Speech or Debate Clause privilege or other privilege. House Office Rayburn House Office Building Room 2026 Phone: 202-225-2280 Fax: 202-273-9988 ocla-cls@va.gov; Senate Office Russell Senate Office Building Room 189 Phone: 202-224-5351 Fax: 202-273-9988 ocla-cls@va.gov; CONNECT. Id. We declared that [d]ocumentary evidence can certainly be as revealing as oral communications, providing clues as to what Congress is doing, or might be about to do, id. Contrary to the majority's assertion that [t]he Executive does not argue that the Clause's bar on compelled disclosure does not apply in the criminal as well as the civil context, Maj. Op. 1: The Senators and Representatives 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 returning from the same (emphasis added). WebHouse Office Buildings (Cannon, Ford, Longworth, Rayburn) Open to the public Monday Attachments A and B, respectively, described Room 2113 and the non-legislative evidence to be seized. 310CHOB (Homeland Security Committee) at JA 80. Webthe building and one in the southwest corner of the building. In drafting the Speech or Debate Clause, the Framers drew upon English history and the long struggle for parliamentary supremacy against Tudor and Stuart monarchs during which successive monarchs utilized the criminal and civil law to suppress and intimidate critical legislators from publicly opposing the Crown. Yet, as the district court noted, the difference between a warrant and a subpoena is of critical importance here. Rayburn, 432 F.Supp.2d at 111. Materials determined by the filter team not to be privileged would be turned over to the prosecution team, with copies to the Congressman's attorney within ten business days of the search. [4] The raid led to members of both parties questioning the constitutionality of the action,[5] and a subsequent hearing by the House Judiciary Committee. Gallery passes are required to enter the Senate galleries and may be obtained through your Senators office by visiting the Senate Appointment Desk after entering the building through security screening. The U.S. House of Representatives is fully accessible to people with disabilities. The district court denied a stay on July 19, 2006. As [t]he laws of this country allow no place or employment as a sanctuary for crime, Williamson v. United States, 207 U.S. 425, 439, 28 S.Ct. This court's jurisdiction of the Congressman's appeal rests on the collateral order doctrine. The Supreme Court has not spoken to the precise issue at hand. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 359-60, 97 S.Ct. Given this purpose, we concluded that the Clause permit[s] Congress to insist on the confidentiality of investigative files and therefore barred enforcement of the subpoena. 2318 RHOB (Science, Space and Technology Committee) The court also acknowledged that the Supreme Court's sensitivities in Gravel, 408 U.S. at 614, 92 S.Ct. Rather he contends legislative and executive interests can be accommodated without such notice, as urged, for example by the Deputy Counsel to the House of Representatives: We're not contemplating advance notice to the [M]ember to go into his office to search his documents before anyone shows up, but rather that [t]he Capitol [P]olice would seal the office so that nothing would go out of that office and then the search would take place with the [M]ember there. Tr. 1. 783, 95 L.Ed. The indictment included charges of racketeering, solicitation of (and conspiracy to solicit) bribes, money laundering, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice.1 Trial is scheduled to begin with jury selection in January 2008. 13. Reliance by the Executive and the district court on Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 566-67, 98 S.Ct. Contact Because Gravel stresses the significance of criminal proceedings, rather than their target, and because his aide can invoke the Clause only if the Member can do so, the majority is wrong in maintaining that Gravel's language as construed in Brown & Williamson is limited to third-party crime.11, Moreover, as the government points out, to conclude that the Clause's shield protects against any Executive Branch exposure to records of legislative acts would jeopardize law enforcement tools that have never been considered problematic. Appellee's Br. The Court has made clear, however, in the context of a grand jury investigation, that [t]he Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 616, 92 S.Ct. Room No. The Congressman has suggested no other reason why return of such documents is required pursuant to Rule 41(g) and, in any event, it is doubtful that the court has jurisdiction to entertain such arguments following the return of the indictment against him while this appeal was pending. Rayburn House Office Building This chill runs counter to the Clause's purpose of protecting against disruption of the legislative process. As such, if the touchstone is interference with legislative activities, then the nature of the use to which documents will be put-testimonial or evidentiary-is immaterial. Id. House Complex Live Locations | Radio TV Gallery (bribery of foreign official) and 18 U.S.C. of Hon. At trial Rep. Jefferson may assert Speech or Debate Clause immunity to bar the use of records he claims are privileged. Also in the third floor basement is a shooting range run by the U.S. Capitol Police and a basketball court. 1019 (1951), and [t]aking a bribe is, obviously, no part of the legislative process or function; it is not a legislative act, Brewster, 408 U.S. at 526, 92 S.Ct. We agree with the Ninth Circuit's holding that the 1989 amendment to Rule 41, eliminating the coupling of a motion for the return of property under Rule 41 and a motion to exclude evidence at trial, Fed.R.Crim.P. FindLaw Perhaps more to the point, however, he contends that complete return of all seized materials is the only remedy that vindicates the separation of powers principles underlying the Speech or Debate Clause and serves as an appropriate deterrent to future violations. There is no indication that the Executive did not act based on a good faith interpretation of the law, as reflected in the district court's prior approval and later defense of the special procedures set forth in the warrant affidavit. HC-5 Indeed, Gravel refus[ed] to distinguish between Senator and aide in applying the Speech or Debate Clause, Gravel, 408 U.S. at 622 (emphasis added), finding instead the existence of criminal proceedings dispositive, id. Our task is to determine how to reconcile the scope of the protection that is afforded to a Member of Congress under the Speech or Debate Clause with the Executive's Article II responsibilities for law enforcement. 1. Congressman Jim Saxton was reportedly the source of the false alarm, after he mistook construction sounds in the garage for gunfire.[8]. CVC-200 (Congressional Auditorium), Cannon Rotunda Neither does the Congressman maintain that the Speech or Debate Clause protects unprivileged evidence of unprivileged criminal conduct. at 44, and therefore the protections of the Clause cannot extend to precluding search warrants, id. Based on the investigation, the affiant concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Congressman Jefferson, acting with other targets of the investigation, had sought and in some cases already accepted financial backing and or concealed payments of cash or equity interests in business ventures located in the United States, Nigeria, and Ghana in exchange for his undertaking official acts as a Congressman while promoting the business interests of himself and the targets. The email address cannot be subscribed. Please be as specific as possible in your description of the problem(s) encountered as well as the location on the website. Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966), and was to serve as a protection against possible prosecution by an unfriendly executive and conviction by a hostile judiciary, id. 2531, 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972). The Galleries will open 30 minutes prior to the beginning of the session. 1334 LHOB, Rayburn Foyer RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 2113, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515, Appellant. Although the search of Congressman Jefferson's paper files violated the Speech or Debate Clause, his argument does not support granting the relief that he seeks, namely the return of all seized documents, including copies, whether privileged or not. Rayburn was completed in early 1965 and is home to the offices of 169 representatives. Rayburn is named after former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn. (emphasis added). See Warrant Aff. The question remains what the appropriate remedy is under Rule 41(g) for a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause. 1. Cf. As we note below, this possibility is not applicable to the present case. The Office of Congressional Accessibility Services (OCAS) provides a variety of services for individuals with disabilities. The Supreme Court has instructed that the Clause is to be applied in such a way as to insure the independence of the legislature without altering the historic balance of the three co-equal branches of Government. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 508, 92 S.Ct. The affiant asserted that the Executive had exhausted all other reasonable methods to obtain these records in a timely manner. Furthermore, [d]epriving the Executive of the power to investigate and prosecute and the Judiciary of the power to punish bribery of Members of Congress is unlikely to enhance legislative independence. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 525 (emphasis added); see id. The Speech or Debate protected by the Constitution includes only legitimate legislative activity, see, e.g., Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376, 71 S.Ct. P. 41(g). Phone: 202-224-3121 If you are having a problem accessing this website please let us know and we will work to ensure accessibility. When the Senate is not in session, the two Senate Galleries will be open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday Friday, with the exception of Federal holidays. Note: Last entry is at 4:30 p.m.Closed to the public on Sundays, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day. Dirksen Senate Office Building - First Street and C Street entrance. WebWashington, D.C. Office 2412 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 The Thomas Jefferson Building is open to visitors Tuesday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Whether the violation requires, as the Congressman suggests, the return of all seized items, privileged as well as non-privileged, depends upon a determination of which documents are privileged and then, as to the non-privileged documents, a balancing of the separation of powers underlying the Speech or Debate Clause and the Executive's Article II, Section 3 law enforcement interest in the seized materials. Web2312 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-8220 Long Beach Office 4201 Long Beach Blvd, Suite 422 Long Beach, CA 90807 Phone: (310) 831-1799 South Gate City Hall Office 8650 California Ave South Gate, CA 90280 Phone: (310) 831-1799 Carson City Hall Office 701 E. Carson St Carson, CA 90745 Phone: (310) 831-1799 Quite the contrary is true. Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 626, 92 S.Ct. The search of Congressman Jefferson's office must have resulted in the disclosure of legislative materials to agents of the Executive. Popular burger chain Steak n Shake has opened its first location in the District, and its inside the Rayburn House Office Building. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 508 (speech or debate privilege was designed to preserve legislative independence, not supremacy) (emphasis added).12, In sum, I believe the Executive Branch's execution of a search warrant on a congressional office-with its unavoidable but minimal exposure to records of legislative acts-does not constitute question[ing] within the meaning of the Speech or Debate Clause. See 62 F.3d at 419. 2445, 61 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979) (quoting Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82, 85, 87 S.Ct. The investigation included speaking with the Congressman's staff, one of whom had advised that records relevant to the investigation remained in the congressional office. The bar on compelled disclosure is absolute, see Eastland, 421 U.S. at 503, and there is no reason to believe that the bar does not apply in the criminal as well as the civil context. Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 13-16 (D.C.Cir.2006) (affirming denial of Member's motion to dismiss on Speech or Debate Clause ground but noting that even [w]hen the Clause does not preclude suit altogether, it may preclude some relevant evidence) (en banc), cert. See infra pp. 2322 RHOB (Energy and Commerce Committee) On June 4, 2007, the grand jury returned a sixteen-count indictment against Congressman Jefferson in the Eastern District of Virginia. First St., and C St., S.W. The Rayburn House Office Building, completed in early 1965, is the third of three office buildings constructed for the United States House of Representatives. The design of the building is a modified H plan with four stories above ground, two basements, and three levels of underground garage space. at 709. 371; Count 2, Conspiracy to Solicit Bribes by a Public Official, Deprive Citizens of Honest Services by Wire Fraud, id. [6] The legality of the raid was challenged in court, where a federal appeals court ruled that the FBI had violated the Speech or Debate clause of the United States Constitution by allowing the executive branch to review materials that were part of the legislative process.[7]. Notwithstanding the search warrant sought only unprivileged records, Rep. Jefferson's congressional office, as the warrant itself manifests,5 also contained records, paper and electronic, of legislative acts to which the Clause's protection extends. The chart below shows the rooms used by Presidents and nominees whose careers included House service after 1908, when the first House office building opened.