Supreme Court is no go on Congress's no go zones
Back in 2005, the FBI pulled $90,000 out of a freezer in the home of the now-indicted Rep. William Jefferson, instantly earning the Louisiana lawmaker the nickname "Congressman Cold Hard Cash."
Then in 2006, the FBI raided his congressional office as a part of its probe that led the corruption charges filed against him last year. And that's when all legal/constitutional heck broke out.
A federal court in DC decided that a Congressman's office was basically a "no go zone" for federal investigators, protected under the Constitution's speech and debate clause. It looks like the Supreme Court is letting this one pass them by. SCOTUSBlog gives a bit more of an explanation:
The Court’s denial of review in U.S. v. Rayburn House Office Building Room 2113 left intact a ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court that gives members of the House and Senate some protection under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause against criminal searches — even with a warrant — of their legislative offices. The specific search at issue involved the office of Rep. William Jefferson, Louisiana Democrat, who has since been charged with bribery and other federal crimes. The Justice Department appeal argued that the Circuit Court’s decision would seriously hamper probes of corruption and criminal conduct by lawmakers.
That's awesome that the case is the United Stats government against a room in a building.
The Speech and Debate Clause, by the way, says that all Members 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."
Jefferson alleges that his Congressional office was protected from search, and it's difficult to understand precisely why, but then again, I'm not a lawyer. In the recent political season, the Speech and Debate clause came up with some wondering whether Larry Craig might also be protected from prosecution for his toe tapping because he was "going to and from" a session of the Senate.
Why would the court sit this one out? It's hard to say. Maybe with the big Second Amendment case sitting atop the pile in their inbox, they don't want to take on more than one epochal Constitutional decision in this session.
The question is whether or not to take relief that they dodged this case. On the one hand, some politicos might breathe a sigh of relief and hope that it will make politicized prosecutions of sitting Members of Congress more difficult (although Jefferson's prosecution certainly is not politicized). On the other hand, who likes the idea that after the Tom DeLay era, sitting Members of Congress have places where it is easier for them to break the law?
Something tells me we haven't heard the last of the speech and debate clause in our time.
