Opinion ID: 490124
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Federal Congressional Privilege and Gillock

Text: 32 The speech or debate privilege for members of the United States Congress has its source in the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, Art. I., Sec. 6, cl. 1. Its  'central role' ... is to 'prevent intimidation of legislators by the Executive and accountability before a possibly hostile judiciary.'  Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 502, 95 S.Ct. 1813, 1821, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975) (citing Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 617, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 2623, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972)). It also prevents disruption of Congressional operations by preventing distractions or interference with ongoing activity. See id. 421 U.S. at 510 n. 16, 95 S.Ct. at 1824-25 n. 16 (Where we are presented with an attempt to interfere with an ongoing activity by Congress ... [t]he speech or debate protection provides an absolute immunity from judicial interference.) The Speech or Debate Clause accomplishes these goals primarily by providing Congressmen and their aides with absolute immunity from criminal or civil suit, see Gravel, 408 U.S. at 615-16, 92 S.Ct. at 2622 (criminal); Eastland, 421 U.S. at 503, 95 S.Ct. at 1820 (civil), for acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process, United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 525, 92 S.Ct. 2531, 2544, 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972). 33 In order to insure that Congressmen are not held liable for legislative acts, the Speech or Debate Clause mandates an evidentiary privilege that prohibits evidence of a Congressman's acts from being used in a proceeding against him. See United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 488-89, 99 S.Ct. 2432, 2439-40, 61 L.Ed.2d 12 (1979). Because hostile questioning by the executive branch before a possibly hostile judiciary, may also impinge on legislative independence, In re Grand Jury Investigation (Eilberg), 587 F.2d 589, 597 (3d Cir.1978), the speech or debate privilege is also testimonial and protects a Congressman or his aides from judicial questioning about his legislative acts, Gravel, 408 U.S. at 615-16, 92 S.Ct. at 2622; Eilberg, 587 F.2d at 596. 34 Both prongs of this evidentiary privilege have two crucial features. First, in keeping with the broad scope of Congressional immunity, the evidentiary privilege applies broadly to evidence or testimony about all acts that occur in the regular course of the legislative process. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 525, 92 S.Ct. at 2544. It therefore applies to activity taken in the course of legislative factfinding. Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504-05, 95 S.Ct. at 1822 (1975); see also Government of the Virgin Islands v. Lee, 775 F.2d 514, 521 (3d Cir.1985). 4 Second, the speech or debate privilege is absolute; hence, it cannot be overcome by any countervailing interest no matter how strong. Eastland, 421 U.S. at 509-510 n. 16, 95 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 16. 35 For many years, courts of appeals differed over the recognition of a speech or debate privilege for state legislators. Some courts held that because the evidentiary privilege for Congressmen exists primarily to protect Congressional immunity, a comparable evidentiary privilege for state legislators, who lack this immunity, made little sense. See, e.g., United States v. Craig, 537 F.2d 957 (7th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 999 (1976); United States v. DiCarlo, 565 F.2d 802, 807 (1st Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 924, 98 S.Ct. 1487, 55 L.Ed.2d 517 (1978). In contrast, a panel of this court recognized the privilege because of the historically accepted view that a legislature will function better in the public interest with the protection than without it. In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Cianfrani), 563 F.2d 577, 583 (3d Cir.1977). This conflict between the circuits was resolved by the Supreme Court in United States v. Gillock, 445 U.S. 360, 100 S.Ct. 1185, 63 L.Ed.2d 454 (1980). 36 In Gillock, the Supreme Court considered whether a common law speech or debate privilege barred federal prosecutors from introducing evidence of a Tennessee state representative's support for particular legislation in a prosecution against the representative for bribery. 5 Chief Justice Burger's decision for the court separated the purposes of the speech or debate privilege into [t]wo interrelated rationales ...: first, the need to avoid intrusion by the Executive or Judiciary into the affairs of a coequal branch, and second, the desire to protect legislative independence. 445 U.S. at 369, 100 S.Ct. at 1191. 37 The interest in preventing intrusion, the Court held, provides no support for a privilege for state legislators in federal cases because the Federal Government has supremacy over state legislatures in areas where the Constitution grants its power to act. Although the Court noted that interests of comity and federalism command careful consideration, 445 U.S. at 373, 100 S.Ct. at 1193-94 it held that federal interference in the state legislative process is not on the same constitutional footing with the interference of one branch of the Federal Government in the affairs of a coequal branch, 445 U.S. at 370, 100 S.Ct. at 1192 (citations omitted), and could not justify the privilege requested in that case. 38 Turning to the second rationale, the interests in legislative independence, the Court recognized that denial of a privilege to a state legislator may have some minimal impact on the exercise of his legislative function and that interests of comity commanded some concern for this impact. 445 U.S. at 373, 100 S.Ct. at 1193-94. But the court noted that it had traditionally drawn the line at protection of state legislators in civil suits. The courts have no power, it reasoned, through the creation of an evidentiary privilege to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress. 445 U.S. at 372, 100 S.Ct. at 1193 (emphasis omitted) (citing Gravel, 408 U.S. at 627, 92 S.Ct. at 2628). Accordingly, the Court held that no common law speech or debate privilege bars federal authorities from using evidence of legislative acts in prosecutions against state representatives.