by James Oliphant
The Supreme Court Monday let stand an appeals court ruling that curtails the FBI's power to search congressional offices.
The case arose out of the FBI's raid of the offices of Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) in 2006. Jefferson, who is fighting federal corruption charges, sought the return of the seized materials, claiming they were protected by the constitutional privilege known as the Speech and Debate Clause. That clause is intended to ensure that legislative process is free from interference from the executive branch.
Last year, in a setback for the government, the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. ruled that some of the materials grabbed by the FBI were likely protected by the privilege--even though agents had properly obtained a search warrant-- and should have been subject to Jefferson's review before they were handed over. The government appealed to the Supreme Court, which Monday declined to hear the case. That lets the appeals court decision stand.
The court's ruling means that the Speech and Debate clause applies to searches by federal agents. The Justice Department complained that the decision would force it to give members of Congress advance notice before a raid is conducted, but the opinion doesn't say that. It simply requires that the member be given some opportunity to review and set aside materials related to the legislative process.
The court ordered the case back to the federal district court, where the trial judge must determine which documents are legislative materials. Those must be returned to Jefferson. However, the court made clear that Jefferson isn't entitled to receive all of his materials back. (Personal financial records, for instance, would not protected.)
Jefferson has pleaded not guilty to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. His trial has been delayed indefinitely while he litigates pretrial issues in the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I've been following the case over the months/years, and as I recall, Jefferson had been keeping several hundred thousand dollars in his refrigerator freezer.
Posted by: tony.s | March 31, 2008 11:10 AM
Jefferson sold his new Orleans constituents down the river. EVERYONE knew the levy system needed beefing up
If only he'd worked as hard at protecting the poor people of New Orleans as he did on lining his pockets.
Posted by: geraldinetoo | March 31, 2008 11:25 AM
This decision merely allows the FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE:"...where the trial judge must determine which documents are legislative materials." PERHAPS HE/SHE WILL DETERMINE THAT THE $90,000.00 DOLLARS IN THE FREEZER OF JEFFERSON'S LOUISIANA HOMESTEAD WAS INVIOLATE TOO??? Ha! Numbskulls-frauds-the whole lot!!!
Posted by: Zyskandar A JaimotZ | March 31, 2008 1:26 PM
Hey, I'm impressed. The Tribune actually referred to a Democrat miscreant as a Democrat? How rare. Next thing, the paper might actually refer to Blago as a Democrat or (gasp) Eliot Spitzer as one.
Posted by: Danforth | March 31, 2008 1:46 PM
This man if found guilty should be sent to prison, and have his pension forfitted. Why is it that whenever a Democrat gets in trouble, the media does not cover it or just chooses to ignore it. No man is above the law. And I think its high time we start to apply the full extent of the law. I don't know about anyone else but I'm sick and tired of seeing politicians get a free pass.
Posted by: Paul Jaeger | March 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Just another blunder in a long list, by law men gone wild, led by the Key Stone Cops Pres. G. Bush & AG Alberto Gonzales.
1.) Illegal Raid on Rep. William Jefferson Offices.
2.) Border Agents Compean & Ramos framed and sent to prison to protrect drug dealers.
3.) Illegal U.S. Interrogation Tatics.
4.) Unlawfully Firing 9 U.S. Attorneys.
5.) Illegal No Warrant Eavesdropping (Wire Tapping)
6.) Texas Teen Sexual Assaults cover up in Detention Center by Staff.
7.) etc. etc.
Those who are sworn to enforse the law, then use the law for personal grievances / vendettas and or providing favors to organized crimanals is not being supported by the Courts and rightly so. The latest, before vindicating Jefferson, was trying to protect convicted Texas illegal immigrant murder/rapist and 51 other similarl capitally convicted illegals . Thank G'd for the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Fareed | March 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Apologies, Zyskandar is correct, I think there was only $90,000 in the freezer, out of the total of several hundred thousand.
Posted by: tony.s | March 31, 2008 2:14 PM
Unlawful firing of 9 US Attorneys? It is IMPOSSIBLE for an AG to unlawfully fire a US Attorney. Janet B Reno fired 99 of them and only kept one who was doing a hatchet job to insure the Clintons were exonerated. The US Attorneys serve at the WHIM of the AG of the US.
Posted by: Roja | March 31, 2008 3:00 PM
Unlawful firing of 9 US Attorneys? It is IMPOSSIBLE for an AG to unlawfully fire a US Attorney. Janet B Reno fired 99 of them and only kept one who was doing a hatchet job to insure the Clintons were exonerated. The US Attorneys serve at the WHIM of the AG of the US.
Posted by: Roja | March 31, 2008 3:00 PM
Roja: This issue was discussed 100 ways to Sunday. The issue wasn't the AG's power to fire, but instead whether that power was exercised in an improper way. Go back to Rush -- he'll make you feel better as you wallow through life in abject stupidity.
Posted by: a blinkin | March 31, 2008 3:43 PM
Roja, The first duty of the President is to protect and defend the Constitution. U.S. Attorney's serve at the "Pleasure" of the "President". The President hires and fires U.S. Attorneys to provide legal assistance which is done in a manner so as not to undermine the integrity of the Dept. of Justice. Firing U.S. Attorneys for not pro actively going after Democrat office holders and impedeading investigations against Republicans or visa versa is not "Protecting or Defending the Constitution. Again the Court's have said as much.
Posted by: Fareed | March 31, 2008 4:55 PM
'Fareed' seems to think[now there is an oxymoron 'Fareed' capable of sentient thought!] that all 'actions' pursued by the BUSH ADMINISTRATION are 'illegal' because he 'Fareed' thinks BUSH is 'ILLEGAL'! SOMEHOW 'FAREED' ASSUMES "JEFFERSON IS VINDICATED..." BECAUSE 'FAREED' WRITES THAT THIS IS SO??? Unfortunately Representative JEFFERSON will in all likelihood be found 'GUILTY' of numerous felony counts and then nitwits such as 'Fareed' can moan/whine how unfair the AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM is to minorities men/women of colour!!! The SUPREME COURT at times has ratified slavery, upheld sepearate but equal [PLESSY v. FERGUSON], allowed 'lies' to be printed without recourse[SULLIVAN v. NYSlimes], alowed curtailment of public speech[McCAIN/FEINGOLD] among other more onerous decisions. INSTEAD OF SHOWCASING/EXTOLLING YOUR IGNORANCE AT LAW - ATTEMPT/TRY LEARNING SOMETHING ABOUT THE HISTORY OF ITS NATION AND ITS UNIQUE CONSTITUTION!!!
Posted by: Zyskandar A Jaimot | April 26, 2008 2:49 PM