Difference between revisions of "Speech or Debate Clause"
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The Speech or Debate Clause “reflects the Founders’ belief in legislative independence.” ''Rangel v. Boehner'', 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing ''[[United States v. Brewster]]'', 408 U.S. 501, 524 (1972)). | The Speech or Debate Clause “reflects the Founders’ belief in legislative independence.” ''Rangel v. Boehner'', 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing ''[[United States v. Brewster]]'', 408 U.S. 501, 524 (1972)). | ||
| + | == Deprives Courts of Subject Matter Jurisdiction == | ||
| + | In late 2022, the [[D.C. Circuit]] held that the Speech or Debate Clause bars [[subject matter jurisdiction]] over any litigation against a congressman for activity within the immunity of this Clause: | ||
| + | {{cquote|... the Speech or Debate Clause bars this suit. The Court concludes that it does, and it therefore dismisses Meadows's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.}} | ||
| + | ''Meadows v. Pelosi'', Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03217 (CJN), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198129, at *3 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2022). | ||
[[Category:Speech or Debate Clause]] | [[Category:Speech or Debate Clause]] | ||
[[Category:United States Congress]] | [[Category:United States Congress]] | ||
[[Category:United States Constitution]] | [[Category:United States Constitution]] | ||
Revision as of 07:46, March 19, 2023
In the United States Constitution Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, the Speech or Debate Clause declares that members of both houses 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. | ” |
The purpose of the Speech and Debate Clause is to protect members from being arrested by the President or other representatives of the Executive branch on a ploy to inhibit them from voting a specific way or taking actions with which he/she might hold an opposing view.
In court decisions this is more frequently referred to as the Speech or Debate Clause, rather than the Speech and Debate Clause. Overall, more than 1,400 court decisions refer to this principle, including 44 decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) cited this as a defense against a subpoena by a Democrat prosecutor to compel him to answer questions under oath before an unusual special purpose grand jury in Georgia.
Prominent cases
In Fields v. Office of Johnson, 459 F.3d 1 (2006), the D.C. Circuit en banc narrowed the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause such that it not impeded lawsuits by Capitol staff based on alleged discrimination:
| “ | Legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause is limited to matters that are part of, or integral to, the due functioning of the legislative process. It is not enough that a Member's conduct is within the outer perimeter of the legislative process. Cf. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 513-16, 528. | ” |
Fields v. Office of Johnson, 373 U.S. App. D.C. 32, 43-44, 459 F.3d 1, 12-13 (2006).
The Speech or Debate Clause “reflects the Founders’ belief in legislative independence.” Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 524 (1972)).
Deprives Courts of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In late 2022, the D.C. Circuit held that the Speech or Debate Clause bars subject matter jurisdiction over any litigation against a congressman for activity within the immunity of this Clause:
| “ | ... the Speech or Debate Clause bars this suit. The Court concludes that it does, and it therefore dismisses Meadows's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | ” |
Meadows v. Pelosi, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03217 (CJN), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198129, at *3 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2022).