Posted by Frank James at 2:21 pm CDT

From the Wheels-of-Justice-Move-Slowly Department comes the news that the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, in a narrow vote, ruled against a Democratic congressman who gave an illegal recording of a conversation involving then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to newspaper reporters back when President Bill Clinton was starting his second term.

Here’s the Associated Press story:

By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. Jim McDermott had no right to disclose the contents of an illegally taped telephone call involving House Republican leaders a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that McDermott, a Washington Democrat, should not have given reporters access to the taped telephone call.

McDermott's offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee, the panel ruled.

When he became a member of the ethics panel, McDermott "voluntarily accepted a duty of confidentiality that covered his receipt and handling of the ... illegal recording. He therefore had no First Amendment right to disclose the tape to the media," Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote on behalf of the court. Four judges agreed with him.

The ruling upholds a previous decision ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.

Boehner was among several GOP leaders heard on the December 1996 call, which involved ethics allegations against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. Gingrich, who was heard on the call telling Boehner and others how to react to allegations, was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House.

McDermott, who was then serving on the ethics panel, leaked the tape to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The New York Times, which published stories on the case in January 1997.

In a sharp dissent, Judge David B. Sentelle said that under the majority's ruling, "no one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect in the chain of title," that is, the fact that the tape was illegally obtained.

"We do not believe the First Amendment permits this interdiction of public information," Sentelle wrote on behalf of himself and three other judges.

Boehner called the court's ruling encouraging, and noted that the court agreed with a bipartisan report of the House ethics committee in December.

"As I've said many times: when you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you've gone too far," Boehner said in a statement. "Members of Congress have a responsibility not only to obey the laws of our country and the rules of our institution, but also to defend the integrity of those laws and rules when they are violated."

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled against McDermott last year. The 2-1 opinion upheld a lower court ruling that McDermott had violated Boehner's rights.

The full nine-member appeals court later vacated the ruling and heard arguments in the case last fall and again in January.

A spokesman for McDermott declined immediate comment.

Lawyers for 18 news organizations — including major television networks, The Associated Press, The New York Times and The Washington Post — filed a brief backing McDermott last year. They said a ruling against him could chill the media's ability to gather information on important public issues.

But in its January arguments, the court focused on House rules and the obligations of ethics committee members.

The ethics panel said in a report released in December that McDermott had failed to meet his obligations as a committee leader by giving reporters access to the taped call. The House panel took no further action against McDermott beyond release of its Dec. 11 report.

The case is Boehner v. McDermott, 04-7203.

Given the closeness of the federal appellate court vote and the interesting First Amendment question of whether the contents of an illegally taped conversation can be legally discussed publicly, the case would seem to demand Supreme Court review.

Of course, if the high court decides to take the case, it wouldn't be until the last year of the two-term Bush presidency that we’d finally get the ultimate decision that would bring the case, blessedly, to a close.