Category Archives: Speech or Debate Clause

Texas court denies privilege for congressional redistricting conversations

Yesterday, the federal court handling most of the mammoth Texas redistricting litigation denied a motion by members of Congress to prevent disclosure of their conversations to the Texas legislators conducting redistricting. Michael Li, who’s been following all of the back and forth, has an analysis here … but the upshot is that since redistricting is conducted by the state legislature, federal legislators couldn’t claim the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause.

More on all of the redistricting litigation around the country, here.

UPDATE: For those who want to see just a slice of the documentary record of how the redistricting sausage is made (which is itself a tiny slice of how the redistricting sausage is actually made), I’ve linked to the disclosed documents here.

Among the usual horse trades: a request to “pluck the campus” of Hockaday School out of one district and into another because that’s where a Congressman’s grandchildren are in class, and a request to slide one precinct from district to district because that’s where the San Antonio Country Club is.

Share
Posted in redistricting, Speech or Debate Clause | Comments Off

“9th Circuit Denies Rehearing in Renzi Case”

Legal Times has this post on the one-page order declining to rehear the Speech or Debate Clause case en banc.  No dissents, although some predict a cert grant.  You can find Rick’s post on the panel opinion here.

Share
Posted in Speech or Debate Clause | Comments Off

Support for an en banc rehearing in Renzi

Before we get to a cert. grant in the case against former Rep. Richard Renzi, there’s the matter of potential en banc proceedings. The bipartisan legal advisory group of the House of Representatives (which reflects the House’s official institutional position in litigation) has filed this amicus brief in support of rehearing.

Share
Posted in Speech or Debate Clause | Comments Off

Adler Predicts a Likely Cert. Grant in Renzi Case

Here.  I’m inclined to agree.

UPDATE: Mike Stern too.

Share
Posted in Speech or Debate Clause | Comments Off

Breaking News: Former Rep. Renzi Loses Appeal on Speech or Debate Clause Grounds in Ninth Circuit

I have posted the opinion in United States v. Renzi at this link.  There is also an unpublished portion of the opinion (which I have not seen), reinstating the racketeering act dismissed by the district court.

Here is the introduction:

Former Arizona Congressman Richard G. Renzi seeks to invoke the Speech or Debate Clause to preclude his prosecution for allegedly using his public office to benefit himself rather than his constituents. The indictment against him alleges that Renzi offered two private parties a quid pro quo deal. If they would buy private land owned by a former business partner—a sale that would generate enough cash to repay a debt owed to Renzi—the Congressman promised to support future public land exchange legislation favorable to each.

Renzi denies the charges against him, but argues on interlocutory appeal that he is protected by the Clause from even the burden of defending himself. Specifically, he claims that the public corruption charges against him amount to prosecution on account of his privileged “legislative acts”; that “legislative act” evidence was improperly presented to the grand jury; that the United States must show that its investigation did not benefit from its review of “legislative act” evidence; and that the district court erred by declining to wholly suppress all of the evidence against him relating to his illicit “negotiations.”

We cannot agree. We recognize, as we must, that the Speech or Debate Clause is a privilege that “has enabled reckless men to slander and even destroy others with impunity.” United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 516 (1972). But the Supreme Court has made equally clear that the Speech or Debate Clause does not “make Members of Congress supercitizens, immune from criminal responsibility.” Id. Because we cling to “the precise words” of the Court’s own Speech or Debate jurisprudence and “the sense of  those cases, fairly read,” id., we conclude that Renzi’s actions fall beyond the Clause’s protections. We therefore deny Renzi the relief he seeks.

Share
Posted in chicanery, legislation and legislatures, Speech or Debate Clause | Comments Off