Legal Document

445 U.S. 360 100 Supreme Court Reporter 1185 63 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 454 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Edgar or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 GILLOCK. Number 78-1455. Argued Dec. 4, 1979. Decided March 19, 1980. Syllabus A federal indictment charged respondent, then a Tennessee state senator, with accepting money as fees for using his public office to block the extradition of defendant from Illinois, and agreeing introduce legislation which would enable four persons obtain master electricians' licenses they had been unable by way existing examination processes. The District granted respondent's motion suppress all evidence relating legislative activities, holding that senator respondent was entitled judicially created evidentiary privilege. relied on Rule 501 Federal Rules Evidence, provides in relevant part "the privilege witness . shall be governed principles common law may interpreted courts light reason experience." Appeals affirmed Court's recognition its suppression certain items evidence; it held other were insufficiently related process protected Held : In criminal prosecution against legislator there is no barring introduction acts legislator. Pp. 366-374. (a) 501's language history do not support arguments speech-or-debate type legislators cases an established therefore applicable through Rule, such compelled federalism. requires application brought court, thus fact under Constitution could assert does compel analogous prosecution. 366-368. (b) historical antecedents policy considerations inspired Speech Debate Clause require comparable prosecutions. first rationale underlying Clause, resting solely separation-of-powers doctrine, gives grant As second is, need insure independence, this decisions immunity officials suit have drawn line at civil actions. Cf., e. g., Tenney versus Brandhove, 341 367, 71 783, 95 L.Ed. 1019; O'Shea Littleton, 414 488, 94 669, 38 674. Where important interests are stake, enforcement statutes, comity must yield. Recognition their impair legitimate interest Government enforcing statutes only speculative benefits process. 368-373. (c) Congress has chosen either provide prosecuted should accorded same privileges Member Congress, direct apply available similar charge courts. absence constitutional limitation Congress' power make officials, like persons, subject sanctions, basis these circumstances excludes proof facts. Pacific KF135 P2 374. 6 Cir., 587 Reporter, 2nd 284, reversed. Sol. Gen. Wade McCree, Jr., Washington, D. C., petitioner. James V. Doramus, Nashville, Tenn., respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We certiorari resolve conflict Circuits over whether recognize taking bribes otherwise obtaining unlawfully exploitation official position.1 441 942, 99 2159, 60 1043 (1979). 2 * Respondent Edgar Gillock indicted August 12, 1976, Western five counts color right violation 18 Code KF62 § 1951, one count interstate facility distribute bribe 1952,2 participating enterprise pattern racketeering activity 1962. Gillock, practicing attorney, fee State General Assembly 3 Before trial, moved activities. motion, cognizable Evidence. This privilege, deemed equivalent Members both Houses Article I, 6, cl. 1, limited prohibiting Gillock's motivations. court stated necessary "to protect integrity [state's] insuring independence individual legislators" preserve relation between our governments system." 4 appealed pretrial order Sixth Circuit, see 3731, vacated remanded additional consideration. 559 1222 (1977). noted although expressed willingness applied principle particularize evidence. 5 On remand, submitted formal offer requested ruling applicability 15 specifically described evidence.3 detailed proposed trial charging soliciting Ruth Howard exchange influence Howard's brother, Michael Williams. Williams arrested November 1974, being fugitive Illinois. According proof, January 1975 met Memphis her brother's John Hundley, who allegedly told he "friend" help brother. meeting arranged agreed exercise fee. declared intention prove 1975, appeared Williams' hearing. Although denied attending hearing attorney capacity reviewed papers questioned officer about propriety misdemeanor charge. Later day, Attorney concerning "Extradition Misdemeanor."4 7 addition, intended transcript telephone call made 25, 1975. During conversation, advised delayed proceedings, blocked them entirely, exerting pressure before senate judiciary committee budgetary matter. To corroborate indicated attended where conducted presented department's budget request. 8 Next, recited showing used member Senate assist individuals valid Shelby County, Tenn. contacted early 1972. Two weeks later, get enacted reciprocity licensing. Under proposal, person received license another county admitted without test County. represented fixed contingent $5,000 per person, refunded if passed. 9 also introduced bill house. further statements floor bill. After passed branches legislature forwarded Governor, several private including union representatives, voiced opposition legislation. replied financially afford withdraw because already accepted "fees" introducing it. Finally, April 13, 1972, override Governor's veto legislation, into any override. 10 Based renewal exclude 501. It ruled inadmissible request regarding answer request, exert committee. Similarly, reciprocal licensing bill, conversation opposed letter inadmissible. 11 again order. divided vote long felt protection speech debate repeated strong Court, fully justify affirming [the Court] [its] case." 290 (6 Cir. 1978). Turning scope General, participation committee, veto, senate. considered II 12 urges we construct prosecutions legislators. He argues 501.5 Second, contends even apart 501, federalism rooted structure. 13 clear much issue here Recently, Helstoski, 442 477, 489, 2432, 2439, 61 (1979), reaffirmed Brewster, 408 525, 92 2531, 2544, 33 507 (1972), respect "[t]he protects 'against inquiry occur regular course motivation those acts.' " standard, hearings votes speeches privileged hence 14 give aid Gillock. experience."6 substituted present draft Advisory Committee Judicial Conference greater flexibility developing rules case-by-case basis. permitted nine enumerated privileges, except required provided Acts Congress. See Proposed Evidence 501-513, H.R.Doc. 93-46, Pages 9-19 (1973). Neither Committee, Conference, nor saw fit, however, sought standing alone refuse omitted suggest claimed thought indelibly ensconced imperative federalism.7 Moreover, House Report leaves little doubt court.8 H.R.Conf.Rep.No.93-1597, Page (1974). Cf. Wolfle States, 291 7, 54 279, 280, 78 617 (1934) (the admissibility trials "is controlled principles, local statute"); Funk 371, 212, 369 (1933). Thus, Constitution, II, III 16 lead abundantly opinions repeated. See, supra; Johnson, 383 169, 86 749, 681 (1966). Suffice recall England's experience monarchs members Parliament judicial more responsive wishes led authors write explicit organic law. repeal judge-made readily changed judges them, far less than Constitution. 17 Our cases, "[a]lthough Clause's historic roots English history, American experience, context scheme government rather parliamentary U.S., 508, S.Ct., 2535. deciding behalf legislators, analysis look primarily structure counterpart England. interrelated rationales underlie Clause: first, avoid intrusion Executive Judiciary affairs coequal branch, second, desire independence. Eastland Servicemen's Fund, 421 491, 502-503, 1813, 1820-1821, 44 324 (1975). Cases considering frequently arisen accented rationale. Only recently case, re-emphasized central purpose separate, coequal, independent government. suggests lesser standard risk sphere activities." 2441. Accord, supra, 180-181, 755-756. Framers viewed fundamental system checks balances. Works Thomas Jefferson 322 (Ford ed. 1904); Wilson (R. McCloskey 1967). 19 rationale, separation powers citation authorities proposition states, unlike unfettered authority exercised Parliament. By token, areas grants act, Supremacy dictates enactments will prevail competing exercises power. structure, struggles systems restraint 20 Apart suggested extension However, noted, interference footing branch branch. Baker Carr, 186, 210, 82 691, 706, 663 (1962). Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 489-492, 85 1116, 1122-1124, 22 (1965) (federal enjoin state-court clearly unconstitutional statute).9 National League Cities Usery, 426 833, 96 2465, 49 245 (1976), contrary. There, statute regulating wages employees "operate[d] directly displace States' freedom integral operations traditional functions." Id., 852, 2474. 21 not, intervention essential functions. First, argument, Tenth Amendment, special force regard legislators; advanced, executive officers equally plausible claims denial resulted impact governmental recognized regulation Commerce quite different regulates internal functions states. 840-841, 2468-2469. lack might conceivably conduct while legislature, sense imposed wage-fixing Cities. relies heavily 1019 (1951), cognizant potential disruption there, immune suits alleged violations rights 42 1983. claim prevent him exercising First Amendment rights. surveyed British adoption own "presuppositions political history," 372, 786, stated: 23 "We cannot believe Congress—itself staunch advocate freedom—would impinge tradition so well grounded covert inclusion general [of 1983] us." 376, 788. 24 Accordingly, legislator's common-law absolute survived passage Civil Rights Act 1871.10 25 reflects sensitivity functioning read broadly us. action plaintiff vindicate presumed existence liability restraining factor officials. 674 (1974), 26 "Whatever case generally, willful corruption, never performance duties judicial, legislative, officers, contemplates immunization deprivations contrary, fashioned doctrine reach 'so immunize proscribed ..' Gravel 606, 627, 2614, 583 (1972)." 503, 680 (emphasis supplied). 27 Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 429, 984, 994, 47 128 (1976); Scheuer Rhodes, 416 232, 1683, 40 90 protecting subsequent actions.11 28 conclude, therefore, command careful consideration, disclose yields. some minimal function; found wanting inUnited Nixon, 418 683, 3090, 41 1039 when balanced statutes. genuine inhibiting candor exchanges highest levels Branch insufficient denying secure proceeding. Burr, 1789:1880 187 (No. 14,694) (CCVa.1807). Here, benefit process.12 IV 29 course, Executive, but terms confined limit prosecutorial State. Alternatively, imported "spirit" Erie R. company Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 1188 (1938), directed state. But neither courses. 30 discern handicaps judgment Circuit 31 Reversed. 32 REHNQUIST, whom POWELL joins, dissenting. For reasons Judge Edwards & N Immigration Nationality Decisions affirm court. Compare DiCarlo, 565 802 (CA1 1977), cert. denied, 435 924, 98 1487, 55 517 (1978), Craig, 537 957 (CA7) (en banc), 429 999, 97 526, 50 609 re Grand Jury Proceedings, 563 577 (CA3 1977). based 1952 subsequently dismissed assumption prior correct. Government, explicitly reserved position Clause. virtue status senator. attorneys, can opinions. Tenn.Code Ann. 8-609(b)(6) (Supp.1979). makes applies "Senators Representatives." Lake Country Estates, Incorporated Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 391, 404, 1171, 1179, 59 401 full: "Except prescribed pursuant statutory authority, witness, government, State, subdivision thereof experience. actions element defense supplies rule decision, determined accordance law." find significant cited single instance manifested providing statute. developed states irrelevant. taken note laws determining retain system. Trammel 40, 906, 186 (rejection antimarital facts privilege). Powell McCormack, 395 486, 89 1944, 491 (1969) (suit injunction seating Representative Adam Clayton barred Clause), Bond Floyd, 385 116, 87 339, 235 (1966) (individual enjoined depriving Julian seat Georgia Legislature). Despite frequent invocation Tenney, interpretation law, 1179. infrequent. Rabbitt, 1014 (CA8 1978), 439 1022, 75 (1979); Mazzei, 521 639 (CA3), 423 1014, 446, 46 (1975); Homer, 411 F.Supp. 972 (W.D.Pa.1976). Anderson 417 211, 214-215, 2253, 2257-2258, Of form Hobbs Act, RICO, 1962, charges here. 2628, (1972) ("[W]e carry frustrate grand jury's publication classified documents violated statute").

Classification Label: 8