Court Opinion

ID: 9839654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 18:01:22.437454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:55.658464
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued February 23, 2023         Decided September 5, 2023
                                Reissued September 13, 2023

                        No. 23-3001

                    IN RE: SEALED CASE

        Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the District of Columbia
                    (No. 1:22-sc-02144)

    John P. Rowley, III argued the cause for appellant. With
him on the briefs were John S. Irving, Stan M. Brand, and
Stanley E. Woodward, Jr.

    John M. Pellettieri, Assistant Special Counsel, U.S.
Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him
on the brief were J.P. Cooney, Deputy Special Counsel, and
Raymond N. Hulser, Counselor to the Special Counsel.

    Before: HENDERSON, KATSAS, and RAO, Circuit Judges.

    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RAO.

    Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS.

    RAO, Circuit Judge: This case concerns the application of
the Speech or Debate Clause privilege to the contents of
                                2
Representative Scott Perry’s cell phone, which was seized by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation pursuant to a warrant. In a
district court motion, Representative Perry argued the Clause
bars the government from reviewing many of the messages
stored on the phone. As to communications with Executive
Branch officials and parties outside of Congress,
Representative Perry argues that his messages are necessarily
privileged because they constitute “informal factfinding”—a
capacious category he asserts is always privileged and includes
a Member’s attempts to obtain information related to topics of
upcoming votes without express House authorization.

     We disagree. Because at least some informal factfinding is
unprotected under our caselaw, Representative Perry’s
categorical rule fails. Under Supreme Court and circuit
precedent, the proper inquiry is fact-specific and considers
whether the act is “legislative,” i.e., “an integral part of the
deliberative and communicative processes by which Members
participate in committee and House proceedings with respect
to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed
legislation or with respect to other matters which the
Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.”
Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972).

     Some acts of informal factfinding, however, might satisfy
the Gravel test, and so we reject the district court’s categorical
holding that such acts are never legislative acts subject to the
privilege. With respect to Representative Perry’s
communications with Executive Branch officials and others
outside of Congress, we remand for the district court to apply
the Gravel standard on a communication-by-communication
basis.

   As to Representative Perry’s communications with
Members of Congress and congressional staff, we affirm in
                               3
large measure. The district court, however, incorrectly
withheld the privilege from communications between
Representative Perry and other Members about the 2020
election certification vote and a vote on proposed election
reform legislation. These are quintessential legislative acts
entitled to the privilege, and we vacate the district court’s
judgment with respect to those communications and remand.

                               I.

     Scott Perry represents Pennsylvania’s 10th Congressional
District in the House of Representatives. After the 2020
presidential election, Representative Perry used his personal
cell phone to send and receive communications concerning
allegations of fraud in that election. Some of these
communications were with fellow Members of Congress or
with congressional staff. Representative Perry also
communicated with members of the Executive Branch and with
individuals outside the federal government. He sent and
received many of these communications before the House
voted on whether to certify the electoral votes from the 2020
election. See U.S. CONST. amend. XII (directing that “the
President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and
House of Representatives, open all the [Electors’] certificates
and the votes shall then be counted”); Electoral Count Act of
1887, ch. 90, 24 Stat. 373 (codified as amended at 3 U.S.C.
§ 15) (providing procedures for the congressional certification
vote). Other communications occurred with respect to a vote
on proposed legislation to alter election procedures. For the
People Act of 2021, H.R. 1, 117th Cong.

     In August 2022, a magistrate judge of the Middle District
of Pennsylvania issued a search warrant authorizing the FBI to
seize Representative Perry’s phone and create a forensic copy
of its contents. After executing the warrant, the FBI sought a
                                   4
separate search warrant from the District Court for the District
of Columbia to review the forensic copy. The court granted the
warrant, with the proviso that Representative Perry would have
an opportunity to assert any claims of privilege under the
Speech or Debate Clause before the government could review
the phone’s contents. For this procedure, the district court
relied on United States v. Rayburn House Office Building,
which held the Executive Branch must “afford[] [a]
Congressman an opportunity to assert the [Speech or Debate]
privilege” before reviewing materials that likely contain
privileged items. See 497 F.3d 654, 663 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

     Representative Perry filed a “Motion for Nondisclosure”
in district court, arguing 2,219 communications were
privileged from disclosure under the Speech or Debate Clause.
He contended that the Clause protects Members’ efforts at
informal factfinding. In his view, a Member’s attempts to
gather information related to upcoming votes are always
privileged legislative acts because investigation is essential to
the wise exercise of the legislative power.

     Following an in camera review of the contested records,
the district court ordered Representative Perry to disclose all
but 164 of them. 1 In re Search of Forensic Copy of Cell Phone
of Representative Scott Perry (“In re Search”), No. 1:22-sc-
02144, slip op. at 51 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2022). The court held
informal factfinding is never a legislative act and therefore
these communications are outside the Clause’s scope. The
court based this conclusion on the principle that formal
factfinding—i.e., investigation pursuant to official

1
 The communications remain under seal, as do some of the district
court proceedings. This opinion cites only to the unsealed portions
of the record, and it cites only to parts of the parties’ briefs that do
not concern sealed material.
                               5
authorization of a House of Congress—is protected under the
Clause. The court inferred the privilege does not attach to
factfinding in the absence of such official authorization. Id. at
21.

     The court sorted the communications into three categories.
As to category (1), Representative Perry’s communications
with individuals outside the federal government, the district
court concluded these communications were not privileged
because they were informal factfinding. Id. at 28–39. As to
category (2), Representative Perry’s communications with
other Members of Congress and with congressional staff, the
district court held some of these communications were
privileged legislative acts, while others were too far removed
from the legislative process. Id. at 39–46. As to category (3),
Representative Perry’s communications with members of the
Executive Branch, the district court held none of these
communications were privileged because they were “political”
or not factfinding at all. Id. at 48–51.

    We stayed the district court’s order pending appeal and
expedited the case. Our review is de novo. See Ass’n of Am.
Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Schiff, 23 F.4th 1028, 1032
(D.C. Cir. 2022).

                               II.

     At the outset, the government maintains we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal because orders requiring the
disclosure of documents or records are ordinarily not
immediately appealable. The subject of a disclosure order must
usually “refuse to comply and litigate [disclosure] questions in
the event that contempt or similar proceedings are brought
against him”; he may then appeal any resulting contempt order.
Gov’t Br. 15–16 (quoting United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530,
532 (1971)). The government argues this rule applies here, so
                                6
that Representative Perry’s only route to appellate review is to
incur contempt and appeal from that order. We disagree.

     Under our precedent, the district court’s partial denial of
Representative Perry’s nondisclosure motion is an immediately
appealable collateral order. The collateral order doctrine treats
some decisions as “final” even if they do not terminate the case.
Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–46
(1949); 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing jurisdiction in the courts
of appeals over “final decisions”). This is a “small category,”
and it “includes only decisions that are conclusive, that resolve
important questions separate from the merits, and that are
effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in
the underlying action.” Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514
U.S. 35, 42 (1995).

     This court has applied the collateral order doctrine in
Speech or Debate cases involving the protection of Members’
documents. In Rayburn, we held a district court’s denial of a
“[c]ongressman’s motion for return of … seized materials” on
Speech or Debate grounds was a collateral order. 497 F.3d at
657–59. And in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, we reached the
same conclusion with respect to the district court’s denial of a
motion to quash a subpoena on Speech or Debate grounds. 571
F.3d 1200, 1201–02 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Here, a Member of
Congress asserted the Speech or Debate privilege by way of an
evidentiary motion in district court, asserting that the Executive
was wrongfully attempting to review privileged documents.
The district court partially denied the motion. That is an
immediately appealable collateral order under a
straightforward application of Rayburn and In re Grand Jury
Subpoenas.

   The government contends we lack jurisdiction because of
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). In
                                   7
Mohawk, the Supreme Court held a district court’s disclosure
order is not immediately appealable even when the attorney-
client privilege is at stake. Id. at 103. Yet the Court reserved
judgment on whether the denial of a governmental privilege
should be treated the same as a private privilege, “express[ing]
no view” on whether “collateral order appeals should be
available for rulings involving certain governmental privileges
in light of their structural constitutional grounding under the
separation of powers, relatively rare invocation, and unique
importance to governmental functions.” Id. at 113 n.4 (cleaned
up).

     The Speech or Debate privilege concerns the separation of
powers; it is rarely invoked; and it is uniquely important to the
fulfillment of governmental functions. See United States v.
Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 179 (1966). By recognizing the unique
status of governmental privileges, Mohawk left our precedent
untouched. Following Rayburn and In re Grand Jury
Subpoenas, the denial of a claim of Speech or Debate Clause
privilege over documents is an immediately appealable
collateral order, and so we have jurisdiction over
Representative Perry’s appeal. 2

                                  III.

     Representative Perry invokes the Speech or Debate Clause
to protect over two thousand documents and communications
on his cell phone against disclosure to the Executive Branch.
To evaluate his claims, we begin by setting forth our well-
2
  Representative Perry also argues that, even without the collateral
order doctrine, the district court’s order was final because it “end[ed]
the litigation on the merits and le[ft] nothing for the court to do but
execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233
(1945). Because we have jurisdiction under the collateral order
doctrine, we do not address this alternative argument.
                                 8
established framework for considering whether a particular
matter comes within the Clause’s coverage.

                                A.

     The Speech or Debate Clause provides that “for any
Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and
Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
U.S. CONST. art. I, § 6, cl. 1. In the Constitution’s careful
separation of powers, the Clause serves to safeguard the
independence of Congress, “prevent[ing] intimidation of
legislators by the Executive and accountability before a
possibly hostile judiciary.” Gravel, 408 U.S. at 617. The Clause
is “one manifestation of the [Constitution’s] ‘practical security’
for ensuring the independence of the legislature.” Johnson, 383
U.S. at 179 (quoting THE FEDERALIST NO. 48, at 332 (James
Madison) (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961)); see also 2 JOSEPH
STORY, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION § 863 (1st ed.
1833) (calling the privilege a “great and vital” one, “without
which all other privileges would be comparatively
unimportant, or ineffectual”).

     While the privilege’s core is speech and debate in either
House, it has long been recognized to reach other acts within
legislative proceedings. 3 In 1808, the Supreme Judicial Court

3
  The Clause mirrors the language of the English parliamentary
privilege, and that history has at times been relevant for
understanding the Clause but within the context of Congress’s
limited legislative powers. See, e.g., 2 STORY, COMMENTARIES
§ 863 (explaining the American “privilege … is derived from the
practice of the British parliament” but acknowledging “important
distinction[s] arising from the actual differences between English
and American legislation”); Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168,
201 (1881) (“[W]hile the framers of the Constitution did not adopt
the lex et consuetudo of the English Parliament as a whole, they did
                                   9
of Massachusetts, interpreting a nearly identical legislative
privilege in that state’s constitution, refused to “confine [the
privilege] to delivering an opinion, uttering a speech, or
haranguing in debate,” and instead extended it to voting,
making written reports, and “to every other act resulting from
the nature, and in the execution, of the office.” Coffin v. Coffin,
4 Mass. (3 Tyng) 1, 27 (1808). The Supreme Court
subsequently called Coffin “perhaps … the most authoritative
case in this country on the construction of the [Speech or
Debate Clause] in regard to freedom of debate in legislative
bodies,” noting it was decided “early after the formation of the
Constitution of the United States.” Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103
U.S. 168, 204 (1881). And when the Supreme Court considered
the Clause’s reach for the first time, it followed Coffin, holding
the Clause went beyond “words spoken in debate” to include
written reports and resolutions, voting, and other “things
generally done in a session of the House by one of its members
in relation to the business before it.” Id.

     While the Clause covers more than literal speech and
debate, its reach has always been confined to legislative acts
undertaken within the legislative process. Thomas Jefferson
commented the privilege “is restrained to things done in the
House in a Parliamentary course” and does not attach “contra
morem parliamentarium [against parliamentary custom], to
exceed the bounds and limits of [a Member’s] place and duty.”
1 THOMAS JEFFERSON, A MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY
PRACTICE 23–24 (2d ed. 1812) (italics added). Joseph Story
similarly stated the privilege “is strictly confined to things done
in the course of parliamentary proceedings, and does not cover

incorporate such parts of it, and with it such privileges of Parliament,
as they thought proper to be applied to the two Houses of
Congress.”); Johnson, 383 U.S. at 180–83 (discussing English
history and the Clause’s purposes).
                               10
things done beyond the place and limits of duty.” 2 STORY,
COMMENTARIES § 863; see also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443
U.S. 111, 126 (1979) (quoting this passage with approval).

     In adjudicating the scope of the privilege, courts have
consistently recognized both the privilege’s importance for
congressional independence and the limits of the privilege to
acts within the legislative sphere. For instance, the Coffin court
emphasized the privilege attaches only to a legislator’s words
or acts made “in the character of a representative” and while
“executing the duties of his office.” 4 Mass. at 29–31. In
Johnson, the Court explained the privilege “will be read
broadly to effectuate its purposes,” but limited the Clause’s
protection to barring a conspiracy charge insofar as it was
based on a Member’s speech, while allowing the prosecution
to proceed for matters unrelated to the speech. 383 U.S. at 172,
180, 185. And in United States v. Brewster, the Court
maintained it would not be “wise, simply out of an abundance
of caution to doubly insure legislative independence, to extend
the privilege beyond its intended scope, its literal language, and
its history, to include all things in any way related to the
legislative process.” 408 U.S. 501, 516 (1972) (emphasis
added).

     The Supreme Court synthesized the Clause’s history in a
pair of cases that set forth the modern test for what types of
“legislative acts” beyond pure speech and debate are privileged
under the Clause. In Brewster, the Court noted “[a] legislative
act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in
Congress in relation to the business before it” and that not all
“conduct related to the due functioning of the legislative
process” is automatically privileged. Id. at 512, 513–14
(cleaned up). And in Gravel, the Court further clarified:
                                11
        Legislative acts are not all-encompassing. The
        heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either
        House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to
        reach other matters, they must be an integral
        part of the deliberative and communicative
        processes by which Members participate in
        committee and House proceedings [1] with
        respect to the consideration and passage or
        rejection of proposed legislation or [2] with
        respect to other matters which the Constitution
        places within the jurisdiction of either House.
408 U.S. at 625.

     The Court’s subsequent cases leave no doubt: Gravel sets
forth the criterion for assessing the reach of the Speech or
Debate privilege. In Doe v. McMillan, the Court held the
privilege did not apply to acts that were “not an essential part
of the legislative process and [were] not part of that deliberative
process ‘by which Members participate in committee and
House proceedings.’” 412 U.S. 306, 315 (1973) (quoting
Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625). There, the Member maintained the
privilege should attach to acts that served legislative functions,
but that argument was unavailing because the acts were not
“legislative” within the meaning of Gravel. Id. at 313–14. In
Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, the Court
“specifically” made clear that the judicial task is to “determine
whether the [contested] activities are” within Gravel’s
definition of “legislative acts.” 421 U.S. 491, 504 (1975). In
Hutchinson, the Court quoted Gravel at length and similarly
described its formulation as the controlling “definition of the
scope of the Clause.” 443 U.S. at 126–27; see also United
States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 492 (1979) (citing Gravel
favorably).
                               12
     When evaluating whether something is a “legislative act”
within the meaning of Gravel, the Court will often consider
whether protection of the privilege is “necessary to preserve the
integrity of the legislative process,” Brewster, 408 U.S. at 517;
whether the “independence” of the legislature is at stake,
Eastland, 421 U.S. at 511; and whether the actions at issue are
things “generally done in the course of the process of enacting
legislation,” Hutchinson, 443 U.S. at 131 (citing Kilbourn, 103
U.S. at 204) (cleaned up). These considerations are important
for understanding the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause,
and they help to flesh out the application of the Gravel criteria
to specific facts.

     The Clause’s coverage for legislative acts is further
delineated by what is not privileged. The Supreme Court has
repeatedly emphasized that Members may engage in a variety
of legitimate actions within the duties of their office without
triggering the privilege. For instance, “legitimate activities [of
a] political … nature,” such as “‘errands’ performed for
constituents, the making of appointments with Government
agencies, assistance in securing Government contracts, … and
speeches delivered outside the Congress” are not necessarily
privileged. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 512. The act of sending
political newsletters to constituents is not privileged.
Hutchinson, 443 U.S. at 130. And “cajol[ing] … and
exhort[ing]” members of the Executive Branch “with respect
to the administration of a federal statute … is not protected
legislative activity.” Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625. While such acts
are all in a day’s work for a Member of Congress, they are not
privileged under the Speech or Debate Clause.

     These decisions highlight that “there is a difference
between actions taken by legislators, however frequently, and
legislative activity protected by the immunity of the Speech or
Debate Clause.” McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 1286
                                 13
n.28 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc) (majority opinion). 4 The
privilege does not turn on whether an action is in some general
sense “official”; rather, it turns on whether it is a legislative act
within the scope of Gravel. As we have explained, “[b]eyond
actual speech or debate, an act is considered ‘legislative’ only
if” it falls within one of Gravel’s two categories. Massie v.
Pelosi, 72 F.4th 319, 322 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (emphasis added);
see also, e.g., McCarthy v. Pelosi, 5 F.4th 34, 39 (D.C. Cir.
2021); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1302
(D.C. Cir. 1995). And unlike executive privilege, which may
extend to “the outer perimeter of … official duties,” Chastain
v. Sundquist, 833 F.2d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the
“Clause … does not protect acts that are not legislative in
nature, even if they are performed in a Member’s official
capacity,” United States v. Rose, 28 F.3d 181, 187 (D.C. Cir.
1994) (cleaned up); see also Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice
Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 12–13 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (en banc)
(plurality opinion) (distinguishing executive and legislative
privileges and explaining “[i]t is not enough that a Member’s
conduct is within the outer perimeter of the legislative
process”).

    Across a wide variety of factual circumstances, the
Supreme Court and this circuit have faithfully applied the
Gravel test and the principles animating it to determine
whether an act is legislative and therefore privileged under the
Speech or Debate Clause.

                                 B.

     If a Member’s act qualifies as legislative under Gravel, the
privilege applies and the Clause confers three “absolute”

4
 Unless otherwise noted, we cite to the McSurely majority opinion,
not the short per curiam opinion that preceded it.
                              14
protections. See Eastland, 421 U.S. at 509. First, the privilege
includes immunity from suit—a Member may not be sued or
prosecuted for his legislative acts. Id. at 502. Second, the
privilege includes an evidentiary privilege—legislative acts
may not be introduced into evidence even when the
government seeks to punish a Member for non-legislative acts.
Johnson, 383 U.S. at 176–77. Third, the privilege encompasses
a testimonial privilege not to “be questioned in any other
Place.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 6, cl. 1. This means that only
Congress, not the Executive or Judiciary, may force a Member
to testify about legislative acts. Gravel, 408 U.S. at 616.
Legislative acts receive these protections regardless of the
Member’s subjective motives. See Tenney v. Brandhove, 341
U.S. 367, 377 (1951) (“[I]t [i]s not consonant with our scheme
of government for a court to inquire into the motives of
legislators.”).

     In addition, this court also recognizes that one aspect of
the testimonial privilege is a limited protection against the
compelled disclosure of documents. In Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, we explained the “testimonial
immunity of the Speech or Debate Clause” applies beyond the
direct questioning of Members because “[d]ocumentary
evidence can certainly be as revealing as oral
communications.” 62 F.3d 408, 420 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see also
MINPECO, S.A. v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 844 F.2d 856
(D.C. Cir. 1988). Just as the other branches may not compel
verbal testimony concerning legislative acts, they may not
force Members to hand over documentary evidence of those
acts. See United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 40 (2000)
(While “compelled testimony … is not to be found in the
contents of the documents produced in response to [a]
subpoena,” compelled testimony is often “inherent in the act of
producing those documents.”) (cleaned up). Similarly, a private
litigant “is no more entitled to compel [the]
                                15
congressional … production of documents … than it is to sue
congressmen.” Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 421.

     In Rayburn, we applied these cases to an extraordinary
circumstance, the Executive’s search of a Representative’s
House office pursuant to a warrant. 497 F.3d at 663 (remarking
that “[t]he historical record [is] utterly devoid of Executive
searches of congressional offices”). Given the location of the
search, we assumed it “must have resulted in the disclosure of
legislative materials to agents of the Executive,” and we noted
that such a broad disclosure would violate the Clause’s
testimonial privilege. Id. at 661. But we also reiterated that the
Clause “protects against the compelled disclosure of privileged
documents … but not the disclosure of non-privileged
materials.” Id. at 664. We explained the Representative must
be given some opportunity to assert the privilege in court
before the Executive could view the documents. Id. at 662–63.
It is this testimonial protection that Representative Perry
invokes over the communications and materials on his cell
phone.

                                IV.

     Representative Perry claims the Speech or Debate Clause
privilege protects many of the communications on his cell
phone. With respect to communications with individuals
outside the federal government and with Executive Branch
officials, categories (1) and (3) of the district court’s analysis,
Representative Perry argues these are privileged because they
constitute informal factfinding. 5 This category is somewhat

5
 Representative Perry’s claim for privilege with respect to category
(2), his communications with other Members of Congress and
congressional staffers, does not hinge on his informal factfinding
arguments, and we consider these communications in Part V.
                                  16
capacious and not clearly delineated, but Representative
Perry’s definition seems to be: a Member’s individual efforts
to obtain information related to an upcoming vote in the
absence of formal House or committee authorization. See, e.g.,
Perry Br. 11 (framing the case as concerning “the fact-
gathering communications that Rep. Perry conducted, as a
Member of Congress, to inform his legislative actions”); id. at
17 (“[L]egislative acts include formal and informal fact-
finding, and efforts to help inform consideration of an
upcoming vote.”) (cleaned up); id. at 32 (“Each of th[e]
communications should be viewed … in the context of Rep.
Perry’s efforts to seek information that was closely tied to his
official responsibilities.”). Representative Perry maintains that
anything constituting informal factfinding is a legislative act
protected by the Clause—that such matters are categorically
privileged from disclosure. The district court resolved this
categorical argument with a categorical holding that informal
factfinding is never protected by the Clause. See In re Search,
slip op. at 21. The government defends the district court’s
categorical holding. 6 See Gov’t Br. 41–47.

6
  The government also argues we need not review the district court’s
privilege determinations at all. First, the government asks us to limit
Rayburn to searches of physical offices, as opposed to Members’ cell
phones. Rayburn, however, explained that the privilege applies
whenever the Executive Branch searches “a location where
legislative materials [a]re inevitably to be found.” 497 F.3d at 661.
A Member’s cell phone is realistically such a location. Cf. Riley v.
California, 573 U.S. 373, 386 (2014) (“Cell phones … place vast
quantities of personal information literally in the hands of
individuals.”).
      Second, the government contends Rayburn guarantees
Representative Perry only the opportunity to assert the privilege in
district court, with no right to appeal, because Rayburn is merely a
procedural case holding that a district court must conduct one layer
                                 17
     The problem with this litigating posture, however, is that
Representative Perry considers a variety of actions to constitute
so-called informal factfinding, and under our precedents not all
of these actions are legislative acts. Because not everything
included in this novel category satisfies the test articulated in
Gravel, the category does not settle the question of whether the
communications are privileged. Rather, a given act is
legislative if it is an “integral part of” relevant House or
committee “proceedings.” Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625. It is
possible that some communications within the informal
factfinding category could be privileged, and therefore we
disagree with the district court’s holding that informal
factfinding is never a legislative act. But we also reject
Representative Perry’s proposition that informal factfinding is
always a legislative act.

     In assessing whether the privilege applies, the Supreme
Court and this circuit undertake a fact-specific inquiry under
Gravel. Because the district court is better positioned to apply
the correct fact-specific inquiry in the first instance, we vacate
and remand this part of the order.

of review before disclosure to the Executive. The government’s
somewhat baffling view is that once this single layer of review is
complete, right or wrong, there is nothing more for an appellate court
to do. This argument mistakenly treats Rayburn’s nondisclosure
protection as a prophylactic rule rather than a constitutional
privilege. If a communication is privileged and within Rayburn’s
scope, the Executive Branch violates the Speech or Debate Clause
by viewing it. And if the collateral order doctrine provides
jurisdiction, as it does here, we must exercise that jurisdiction. See
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 77 (2013)
(“Federal courts … have no more right to decline the exercise of
jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.”)
(cleaned up).
                                18
                                A.

     In holding that informal factfinding is categorically not
privileged, the district court relies primarily on Eastland and
McSurely. These cases, however, do not establish a categorical
privilege rule for formal (i.e., congressionally authorized)
factfinding, much less for informal factfinding. Rather, these
cases simply apply Gravel and established legal principles to
determine whether some actions taken pursuant to formally
authorized investigations are legislative and therefore
privileged.

     For instance, in Eastland, the Supreme Court held the
privilege attached to the issuance of a subpoena by a
subcommittee acting pursuant to a Senate authorized national
security investigation. 421 U.S. at 503–07. The subpoena
sought the bank records of a non-profit organization, and the
organization sued the subcommittee’s chairman, other
senators, and a subcommittee attorney, seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief. Id. at 494–95. The Court began by
considering whether the subpoena was “within the legitimate
legislative sphere” and whether the acts “took place ‘in a
session of the House by one of its members in relation to the
business before it.’” Id. at 503 (cleaned up) (quoting Kilbourn,
103 U.S. at 204). The Court emphasized that an official
congressional investigation is “essential to legislating” and
covered by the privilege so long as the subcommittee stays
within its “province.” Id. at 507 (cleaned up); see also Trump
v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020) (explaining
Congress enjoys an investigative power that has defined limits
and “is justified solely as an adjunct to the legislative process”)
(cleaned up). More specifically, the issued subpoena
“concerned a subject on which legislation could be had,” and
the Members’ decision to issue it was consequently “an integral
part of the legislative process” within the scope of Gravel.
                               19
Eastland, 421 U.S. at 505–06 (cleaned up). In these
circumstances, the issuance of the subpoena was a privileged
legislative act.

     The Court has been careful to maintain, however, that not
everything done pursuant to formal authorization is privileged.
For instance, in McMillan, the Court explained that “the fact of
congressional authorization for the questioned act is not
sufficient to insulate the act from judicial scrutiny.” 412 U.S.
at 316 n.10; see also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 504
(1969) (similar). The Court recognized the “importance of
informing the public about the business of Congress. However,
the question remains whether the act of doing so, simply
because authorized by Congress, must always be considered
‘an integral part of the deliberative and communicative
processes by which Members participate in committee and
House proceedings’ with respect to legislative or other matters
before the House.” McMillan, 412 U.S. at 314 (quoting Gravel,
408 U.S. at 625); see also Eastland, 421 U.S. at 505–07
(following McMillan and Gravel). The relevant inquiry always
reverts to whether an act is legislative under Gravel.

     In McSurely, our en banc court considered in detail
whether the “transportation and use of … seized” private
documents “by the chairman of [a] Senate subcommittee and
several members of the subcommittee staff” were covered by
the privilege. 553 F.2d at 1280 (per curiam opinion). We
explained that even if an investigation “fell within the broad
authorization of [a] Senate resolution[,] [that] does not render
everything done by” a subcommittee or one of its
investigators “privileged activity which is essential to
legislating.” Id. at 1295 (majority opinion) (cleaned up).
Rather, in order “[f]or an activity to be considered ‘essential to
legislating’ it must be ‘an integral part of the deliberative and
communicative processes’ dealing with matters within the
                               20
jurisdiction of Congress.” Id. (quoting Gravel, 408 U.S. at
625). And even authorized factfinding may not be privileged if
it “go[es] beyond the reasonable requirements of the legislative
function.” Id. at 1285 n.27, 1287 (quoting McMillan, 412 U.S.
at 315). In applying these principles, we found that some acts
taken pursuant to the investigation were protected and others
were not. For instance, subcommittee staff were protected
when they inspected “234 photocopies” of seized documents
“within the [s]ubcommittee.” Id. at 1296. The Members were
also protected when they “use[d] … the copies as the basis for
issuance of subpoenas … and … procure[d] … contempt of
Congress citations against [the] plaintiffs.” Id. But one of the
subcommittee’s investigators was not protected when he seized
documents “[c]oncededly [i]rrelevant to [l]egislative
[i]nquiry.” 7 Id. at 1294–95 (majority opinion). In McSurely, the
granular, fact-intensive evaluation resists any categorical rule
that the Speech or Debate Clause privilege turns on formal
authorization for an investigation.

     Other decisions similarly confirm the Speech or Debate
privilege does not turn solely on the formality or regularity of
a Member’s act. For example, Coffin held the privilege was
applicable to legislative acts “without inquiring whether the
exercise was regular according to the rules of the house, or
irregular and against their rules.” 4 Mass. at 27 (emphasis
added). And in Brown & Williamson, we noted “[t]he
privilege … permits Congress to conduct investigations and
obtain information without interference from the courts, at
least when these activities are performed in a procedurally
regular fashion.” 62 F.3d at 416 (emphasis added).

7
  Five of ten participating judges dissented with respect to these
documents, but they did so on Fourth Amendment grounds. See id.
at 1327–33 (Wilkey, J., dissenting).
                                 21
     In light of the reasoning in Eastland, McSurely, and other
cases, we reject the district court’s holding that all informal
factfinding is excluded from protection of the privilege and that
factfinding must have formal authorization before the privilege
may attach. See In re Search, slip op. at 21. An investigation
authorized by the House and within its jurisdiction is an
exercise of congressional power and by definition part of a
legislative proceeding, but formal authorization is neither
necessary nor sufficient for the privilege to attach to the wide
range of activities that could be denominated “investigative” or
“factfinding.” 8 Rather, the Supreme Court and this circuit
consider the specific facts to determine whether a particular
action is a legislative act within the test articulated by Gravel. 9

                                 B.

     Representative Perry maintains all instances of informal
factfinding fit within Gravel’s first category: acts that are
“integral part[s] of the deliberative and communicative
processes by which Members participate in committee and
House proceedings with respect to the consideration and

8
  When a privilege argument rests on the assertion that a House of
Congress validly exercised its investigative power, the scope of that
investigative power is relevant to the inquiry and the Court considers
whether the investigation concerns “a subject on which legislation
may be had.” Eastland, 421 U.S. at 508. But determining whether
Congress acted within the scope of its investigative power is a
distinct inquiry from whether the privilege attaches under Gravel.
9
  Even under this fact-specific evaluation, the district court was
correct that it is “unnecessary and irrelevant” to “assess the sources
of information Rep. Perry chose to use, the significance of that
information to him in how he chose to act, or whether the information
he obtained … amounted to verifiable facts.” In re Search, slip op.
at 30.
                                22
passage or rejection of proposed legislation.” 10 408 U.S. at 625.
To support his contention, Representative Perry relies on the
importance of Congress’s factfinding or informing function as
an ancillary to its legislative powers. For example,
Representative Perry points to the Court’s emphasis that “the
power to investigate is inherent in the power to make laws
because ‘a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or
change.’” See Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504 (quoting McGrain v.
Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 175 (1927)) (cleaned up); see also
McSurely, 553 F.2d at 1286 (“We have no doubt that
information gathering, whether by issuance of subpoenas or
field work by a Senator or his staff, is essential to informed
deliberation over proposed legislation.”). Representative Perry
contends the importance of factfinding to the legislative
process necessarily makes such acts legislative and therefore
privileged.

    Informal factfinding is an amorphous category, and
Perry’s briefing is unclear what precisely would be subsumed
within this term. Some instances of informal factfinding might
be privileged, but at least some of the acts Representative Perry
considers to be informal factfinding have been held to be
outside the coverage of the Clause. See McSurely, 553 F.2d at
1285 n.27 (explaining the Supreme Court “has held significant
aspects of ‘the informing function of Congress’ outside of the

10
  Representative Perry makes no argument that informal factfinding
categorically fits within Gravel’s second category, acts that are
“integral part[s] of the deliberative and communicative processes by
which Members participate in committee and House
proceedings … with respect to other matters … within the
jurisdiction of either House.” Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625.
                               23
protection of the Speech or Debate Clause”) (cleaned up). His
categorical claim for the privilege therefore fails.

      To begin with, Representative Perry would treat acquiring
information or documents to further legislative deliberations as
always privileged, but this claim is directly at odds with
Gravel. Perry Br. 11, 17. That case concerned a senator who
obtained a copy of the classified Pentagon Papers with the help
of an aide. Gravel, 408 U.S. at 608–10. The Senator read the
Papers into the record and subsequently handed them off to a
private publisher. Id. at 609–10. The Court held the Senator’s
act of reading the Papers into the record was a legislative act,
i.e., actual speech in the Senate, but the act of publishing them
was not. Id. at 615–16, 622, 628–29. Importantly, the Court
held a grand jury could ask the aide “questions relevant to
tracing the source of … documents that came into the Senator’s
possession … as long as no legislative act is implicated by the
questions.” Id. at 628 (emphasis added). This necessarily
entails that the acquisition of documents—a form of informal
factfinding—was not a legislative act. Gravel pokes a
substantial hole in Representative Perry’s privilege category.

     Representative Perry also suggests that informal
factfinding includes all “efforts to help inform consideration of
an upcoming vote.” Perry Br. 17. But this claim is inconsistent
with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hutchinson. There, a
Member collected information about the federal government’s
allegedly wasteful expenditures and circulated this information
in a press release and a constituent newsletter. 443 U.S. at 114–
17. The press release called the spending “outrageous” and
urged it was “time we put a stop” to the waste. Id. at 116
(cleaned up). These communications fit within Representative
Perry’s understanding of informal factfinding because the
Court recognized “a Member’s published statements exert
some influence on other votes in the Congress and therefore
                                24
have a relationship to the legislative and deliberative process.”
Id. at 131 (emphasis added). Nonetheless, the Court held the
privilege inapplicable because “neither the newsletters nor the
press release was essential to the deliberations of the Senate
and neither was part of the deliberative process.” Id. at 130
(emphasis added) (cleaned up). Not all communications that
may influence a vote are privileged; rather, the proper test is
whether such communications are “integral” or “essential” to
deliberations or otherwise satisfy the requirements of Gravel. 11

     Finally, Representative Perry suggests his informal
factfinding efforts are legislative acts because these
communications related to his “official” duties and
responsibilities as a Member of Congress “during a time of
uncertainty about the validity of a Presidential election and
under circumstances that neither the nation nor its leaders had
seen before.” Perry Br. 28. The Speech or Debate privilege
undoubtedly “assure[s] a co-equal branch of the government
wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without
intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch.” Gravel,
408 U.S. at 616. But under Gravel, the “Clause … does not
protect acts that are not legislative in nature, even if they are
performed in a Member’s official capacity.” Rose, 28 F.3d at
187 (cleaned up).

     Privileged legislative acts are only a subset of the various
activities a Member may undertake as part of his official duties
and responsibilities. The fact that informal factfinding is
consistent with a Member’s official duty to legislate wisely
does not necessarily mean that such acts are privileged. For

11
   To the extent Representative Perry also suggests the privilege
extends to any and all factual conversations a Member has with
individuals outside Congress, Perry Br. 29–30, our caselaw offers no
support for that assertion.
                                25
instance, the Court has held that the following activities are
properly within a Member’s duties, yet not covered by the
privilege: “legitimate activities [of a] political … nature,”
Brewster, 408 U.S. at 512; sending political newsletters to
constituents, Hutchinson, 443 U.S. at 130; and
“cajol[ing] … and exhort[ing]” the Executive Branch, Gravel,
408 U.S. at 625. Representative Perry’s suggestion that all
“official” acts are privileged directly contradicts the rule that
the Clause does not “protect[] all conduct relating to the
legislative process. … [T]he … Clause has been limited to an
act which was clearly a part of the legislative process—the due
functioning of the process.” Brewster, 408 U.S. at 515–16;
accord Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 415.

     Informal factfinding encompasses a wide spectrum of acts
that may or may not be related, much less integral, to House
“deliberative and communicative processes.” Gravel, 408 U.S.
at 625. Cases applying the Gravel test to specific acts
demonstrate that informal factfinding has no necessary
connection to the privilege. 12 Not everything under the
informal factfinding umbrella is protected. Representative
Perry’s attempt to shoehorn a novel and broad category into
Gravel would pull the Supreme Court’s doctrinal framework
out of joint.

                              ***

     The Supreme Court and this circuit have never suggested
that investigative activities are privileged only if undertaken
pursuant to formal authorization, nor that any activity asserted
to be investigative factfinding is privileged. These categorical
rules are inconsistent with our longstanding precedents and

12
   Judge Katsas suggests some narrower category of information
gathering is protected by the Clause. While this possibility is not
foreclosed, we need not resolve it in this case.
                              26
their reasoning. The labels “formal” and “informal” factfinding
gloss over the appropriate analysis under the Speech or Debate
Clause. It follows from these principles that communications
with individuals outside of Congress may qualify for the
privilege. To determine whether a particular matter or action is
privileged, we must apply the test in Gravel in a manner
consistent with the principles undergirding the Clause. Because
the district court applied the incorrect legal standard, we
remand the privilege determinations over categories (1) and (3)
for the district court to apply Gravel on a communication-by-
communication basis.

                              V.

     We now consider whether the privilege applies to
communications between Representative Perry and other
Members of Congress or congressional staff. The district court
held some of these category (2) communications were
privileged legislative acts and some not. Representative Perry
maintains they are all privileged.

     The district court correctly held that communications with
Members and staff about legislation, votes, committee
assignments, and caucus affairs were squarely “legislative
acts” within the meaning of Gravel. In re Search, slip op. at
40–44. Records of these communications are privileged.

    The district court also determined that some of
Representative Perry’s intra-congressional communications
were non-legislative. Id. at 43–44. These included electronic
newsletters, insofar as they merely discussed “upcoming
events, political talking points, news articles of interest, and
[non-legislative] events occurring in and around Congress.” Id.
We agree these are too far removed from legislative
proceedings to warrant privilege under the Clause. Not
“everything a Member of Congress may regularly do is … a
                                27
legislative act within the protection of the Speech or Debate
Clause.” McMillan, 412 U.S. at 313. Although sent by
Members of Congress to other Members, the newsletters did
not concern legislative proceedings or matters integral to those
proceedings, but rather focused on topics outside the
“legislative sphere.” Id. (cleaned up). The subjects of these
communications are akin to political matters not covered by the
privilege. See Brewster, 408 U.S. at 512–13. These newsletters
are also similar to the newsletters and press release the Court
held unprotected in Hutchinson because they were not
“essential to the deliberations of the Senate [nor] part of the
deliberative process.” 443 U.S. at 130 (cleaned up). It follows
that Representative Perry’s discussions with his staff about
press coverage and his media strategy are also not privileged
legislative acts. These strategic discussions are at least as
removed from the deliberative process as the unprivileged
communications in Hutchinson. The government may view
records of these communications.

     We disagree, however, with the district court’s
determination that discussions with other Members about
alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential election were non-
legislative. The court described these conversations as “purely
political rather than legislative” and opined that they were “[a]t
best … merely incidental to Rep. Perry’s [upcoming
certification] vote.” In re Search, slip op. at 45–47. The district
court concluded these conversations were “not integral to”
legislative proceedings and were “‘beyond the legitimate
legislative needs of Congress.’” Id. at 46–47 (quoting
McSurely, 553 F.2d at 1285–86).

    The district court inadequately considered the context of
these conversations, which involved Member deliberations
about upcoming votes. Some of the communications took place
shortly prior to Congress’s scheduled January 2021 vote on
                                28
whether to certify the electoral results from each state. Others
took place while the House was considering a bill that would
modify federal election procedures, among other things. See
H.R. 1, 117th Cong. Discussions between Members about
pending votes are “things generally done in a session of the
House by one of its members in relation to the business before
it,” Kilbourn, 103 U.S. at 204, and such discussions are within
the heartland of “the deliberative and communicative processes
by which Members participate in committee and House
proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or
rejection of proposed legislation” or other matters within the
House’s jurisdiction. 13 Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625.

     Relying on the fact that the communications concerned
election fraud and electoral results, the district court labeled
them “textbook political conversations not protected by the
Clause.” In re Search, slip op. at 46. While elections are
political events, a Member’s deliberation about whether to
certify a presidential election or how to assess information
relevant to legislation about federal election procedures are
textbook legislative acts protected by Gravel.

     Federal courts must determine the outer boundaries of the
Speech or Debate Clause privilege. But when a Member
engages in a legislative act, the court cannot carve out from the
privilege certain topics of discussion by labeling them “merely
incidental” or by deeming them illegitimate. Id. at 47; cf.
Tenney, 341 U.S. at 377 (“The claim of an unworthy purpose
does not destroy the privilege.”). For courts to pick and choose
the scope of the privilege based on a free-floating evaluation of

13
   The government does not dispute that the certification vote was a
“matter[] which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of
[the] House,” nor that the vote on H.R. 1 was “the
consideration … of proposed legislation.” Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625.
                               29
the proper objects of congressional deliberation would threaten
the Speech or Debate Clause’s essential protection for
legislative independence.

     Representative Perry’s conversations with other Members
concerned the passage of proposed legislation as well as the
exercise of the constitutional duty to certify the electoral votes
from the 2020 election. These communications were
privileged, and we leave it to the district court to implement
this holding on a communication-by-communication basis.

                              ***

     As to Representative Perry’s communications with
individuals outside the federal government, communications
with members of the Executive Branch, and communications
with other Members of Congress regarding alleged election
fraud during the period before Congress’s vote certifying the
2020 election and before its vote on H.R. 1, the district court
failed to apply the fact-specific privilege inquiry under Gravel.
We therefore vacate the judgment in part and remand for the
district court to apply the correct standard, consistent with this
opinion. With respect to the remaining privilege determinations
about Representative Perry’s communications with Members
of Congress, we affirm.

                                                     So ordered.
     KATSAS, Circuit Judge, concurring: Representative Scott
Perry claims that the Speech or Debate Clause of the
Constitution protects the confidentiality of some 2,219 records
stored on his cell phone, including 1,508 communications with
individuals outside the House of Representatives. Perry says
that the latter involve what he calls “informal factfinding” to
inform his votes on whether to (1) certify the results of the 2020
presidential election and (2) support a bill to modify election
procedures. The district court held that because the House had
not formally authorized an investigation into either matter, the
Clause protects none of the 1,508 communications. On appeal,
the Executive Branch supports the court’s holding that the
Clause protects no unauthorized factfinding by individual
Members of Congress, and Perry continues to argue that the
Clause protects all the disputed records.

     The Speech or Debate Clause provides that “for any
Speech or Debate in either House,” Members of Congress
“shall not be questioned in any other Place.” U.S. Const. art. I,
§ 6, cl. 1. The Clause protects only “legislative acts,” which
“must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative
processes by which Members participate in committee and
House proceedings with respect to the consideration” of either
proposed legislation or other House votes. Gravel v. United
States, 408 U.S. 606, 625 (1972). This category includes
“things generally done in a session of the House by one of its
members in relation to the business before it.” Kilbourn v.
Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 204 (1881). Conversely, the Clause
does not protect “political” acts, which are “casually or
incidentally related to legislative affairs but not a part of the
legislative process itself.” United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S.
501, 512, 528 (1972).

     Several precedents elucidate this distinction. Protected
legislative acts include voting, speaking on the floor,
introducing bills or resolutions, writing committee reports, and
                              2
speaking at committee meetings. See Doe v. McMillan, 412
U.S. 306, 311 (1973); Kilbourn, 103 U.S. at 204. Also
protected is the issuance of subpoenas, if formally authorized
and relevant to a subject on which legislation could be had.
Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504–06
(1975). On the other hand, unprotected political acts include
press releases, speeches made outside the Congress, and
helping constituents. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 512. Also
unprotected are “attempts to influence the conduct of executive
agencies,” Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 121 n.10
(1979); the taking of bribes, Brewster, 408 U.S. at 525–26; the
unauthorized acquisition of classified documents, Gravel, 408
U.S. at 628–29; and the use of other “unlawful means” to
pursue investigations, McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277,
1288 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc).

     The privilege claims asserted by Representative Perry are
substantially overbroad. Many of the disputed records involve
communications through which he sought to influence the
conduct of officials outside the Congress—Executive Branch
officials, state legislative officials, and campaign officials.
Many other records involve press releases or media statements.
The district court correctly held that the Speech or Debate
Clause does not protect any of these records. And because
Perry attempts to shoehorn all the disputed records into an
assertedly protected category of informal factfinding, this
Court rightly concludes that his alleged category includes many
unprotected communications.

    But some of the disputed records involve nothing more
than Representative Perry gathering information to inform
upcoming votes. In my view, the Speech or Debate Clause
protects that activity. Should an individual Member of
Congress bother to learn something about a bill before voting
on it? The question answers itself. “Without information,
                               3
Congress would be shooting in the dark, unable to legislate
‘wisely or effectively.’” Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S.
Ct. 2019, 2031 (2020) (quoting McGrain v. Daugherty, 273
U.S. 135, 175 (1927)). That is why each House has an implied
power to subpoena witnesses or documents relevant to possible
legislation. McGrain, 273 U.S. at 177. It is also why the
Speech or Debate Clause protects exercises of that power.
Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504. Of course, individual Members
cannot unilaterally exercise the House’s implied power to issue
subpoenas (at least absent a delegation), just as they cannot
unilaterally exercise Congress’s express power to, say, regulate
interstate commerce. But when individual Members solicit or
receive information from colleagues or others willing to
provide it voluntarily, they engage in activity integral to the
“deliberative and communicative processes” of the Congress
itself. Gravel, 408 U.S. at 625. Regardless of formal
authorization, the Speech or Debate Clause thus protects
“information gathering” as an “essential prerequisite[]” to the
“enlightened debate over proposed legislation,” Gov’t of V.I. v.
Lee, 775 F.2d 514, 521 (3d Cir. 1985); see Miller v.
Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 530 (9th Cir. 1983),
just as a common-law immunity protects the same activity by
state and local legislators, Almonte v. City of Long Beach, 478
F.3d 100, 107 (2d Cir. 2007); Bruce v. Riddle, 631 F.2d 272,
279–80 (4th Cir. 1980); see also Kent v. Ohio House of
Representatives Democratic Caucus, 33 F.4th 359, 364 (6th
Cir. 2022) (equating the two immunities).

     The district court reasoned that McSurely forecloses
Speech or Debate Clause protection for information gathering
that has not been formally authorized by the House or Senate
itself. In re Search of Forensic Copy of Cell Phone of
Representative Scott Perry, No. 1:22-sc-02144, slip op. at 22
(D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2022) (In re Search). But one part of
McSurely says the opposite: “The acquisition of knowledge
                               4
through informal sources is a necessary concomitant of
legislative conduct and thus should be within the ambit of the
privilege so that congressmen are able to discharge their
constitutional duties properly.” 553 F.2d at 1287 (cleaned up).
The district court invoked McSurely’s further statement that
“congressional authorization” of an investigation, which the
House or Senate typically provides to a committee or
subcommittee, is a “requirement” to justify the issuance of
subpoenas under McGrain and the ensuing Speech or Debate
Clause protection under Eastland. See id. In turn, Eastland
confirms that congressional authorization of an investigation is
“sufficient” to justify the issuance of subpoenas under
McGrain. See 421 U.S. at 506. These rules, governing the
authority and protection for the issuance of congressional
subpoenas, do not suggest that the Speech or Debate Clause
affords no protection when a Member seeks only to gather
information consensually and informally, from individuals
willing to provide it voluntarily.

     Moreover, such a restriction would stand the Clause on its
head. Its most obvious applications—to speech, debate, and
voting—cover activities that Members routinely perform on
the floor of the House, individually and without authorization
from any committee or subcommittee. A leading early decision
held that a state analog of the Clause “is not so much the
privilege of the house, as an organized body, as of each
individual member composing it, who is entitled to this
privilege, even against the declared will of the house.” Coffin
v. Coffin, 4 Mass. 1, 27 (1808). The Supreme Court, describing
Coffin as “perhaps, the most authoritative case in this country”
on the “freedom of debate in legislative bodies,” has treated
Coffin as highly persuasive in construing the federal Speech or
Debate Clause. See Kilbourn, 103 U.S. at 203–04. And the
modern Court continues to describe the Clause as protecting
“the independence of individual legislators,” not the House or
                              5
Senate as a whole or committees or subcommittees acting on
behalf of either body. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 507.

     Finally, a formal authorization requirement would make
no sense. At oral argument, the Executive all but conceded that
the Speech or Debate Clause protects individual Members who,
while conducting the business of a congressional committee or
subcommittee, informally solicit input from individuals outside
the Congress. See Oral Arg. 46:00–48:30, 51:30–52:05. But
the character of these solicitations is the same regardless of
whether the relevant deliberations occur in a subcommittee, in
a committee, or on the floor. If a Member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee engages in protected activity by soliciting
input from outside groups to inform his vote on whether to
recommend confirming a Supreme Court nominee, then so too
do other Members of the Senate in deciding how to vote when
the nomination reaches the full Senate. Likewise, the district
court recognized that a Representative, regardless of committee
or subcommittee authorization, engages in protected activity by
soliciting information from fellow Representatives about an
upcoming vote. In re Search, supra, at 40–41. If that is so,
then so too does a Representative who, in preparing for the
same vote, solicits information from individuals outside the
Congress.

     The Court rightly concludes that the category of “informal
factfinding” proposed by Representative Perry includes much
unprotected material, but I do not read the Court’s opinion to
foreclose protection for the kind of informal, non-coercive
information gathering that I have described.           On that
understanding, I join the Court’s opinion in full.