Supreme Court Takes a Dive on Jefferson Lawsuit

Tom Fitton
The U.S. Supreme Court handed congressional crooks a gift this week when it refused to hear a case involving an FBI search of Louisiana Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office. Thanks to this ruling, members of Congress will continue to have a “law enforcement free zone” in which to conduct corrupt and criminal activity – their taxpayer-funded congressional offices.

According to the March 31st edition of The Wall Street Journal:

“The Supreme Court declined to intervene in a dispute between the Justice Department and Congress over the 2006 criminal raid of Rep. William Jefferson's Capitol Hill office…Last August, a Washington-based U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a court order barring prosecutors from using evidence gathered in the office raid. When the government asked the D.C. Circuit to reconsider the stay, it voted 5-4 to leave the restrictions in place.”

In a one-line order, without comment, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not hear the case.

For those who need a reminder, here’s a bit of the back story. Jefferson was nabbed in a sting operation accepting a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant to broker business deals in Africa. (You may recall that during the conversation with the informant, who was wired, Jefferson famously remarked, “All these notes we’re writing to each other, as if the FBI is watching.”) Well, the FBI was watching (and listening), and during a subsequent search of Jefferson’s home, investigators found $90,000 in cash stuffed in the congressman’s freezer.

The FBI then obtained a search warrant and took its investigation to Jefferson’s Capitol Hill office collecting thousands of pages of documents and computer files. That’s when the trouble started. Leaders of Congress from both parties complained that the search somehow violated the separation of powers. The District Court rightly rejected this argument. However, the Court of Appeals did not, ruling that the evidence collected was inadmissible.

Why?

“…The U.S. court of appeals… agreed with Jefferson's lawyers that the so-called speech and debate clause barred FBI agents from poring over papers and files in a congressional office. The judges reasoned that some of the papers may contain politically sensitive material.”

As you may recall, Judicial Watch filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit. Here’s what we had to say on the Speech or Debate clause argument:

“In order for Congressman Jefferson to enjoy the protection afforded by the Speech or Debate clause, it is incumbent upon him to demonstrate…that his actions were legislative activities…All of the actions allegedly taken by Congressman Jefferson were allegedly for the sole purpose of using his status as a U.S. Congressman to solidify a business venture in which he stood to make millions of dollars…Such actions are anything but official…they are clearly not legislative.

In other words, the Speech or Debate Clause was not intended to allow members of Congress to conceal corrupt and criminal activity. Taking a bribe is not part of the legitimate legislative process. The Supreme Court erred in not hearing this case and overturning the erroneous appellate court decision.

Now the Justice Department is trying to negotiate an agreement with congressional leaders on the terms and procedures to obtain evidence for criminal inquiries from congressional offices. But Congress has the upper hand, along with the crooks in its midst who now have “sanctuary” from the rule of law.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton
Judicial Watch is a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.