View source for Speech or Debate Clause

{{Short description|Clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1)}}
The '''Speech or Debate Clause''' is a clause in the [[United States Constitution]] ([[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]], Section 6, Clause 1). The clause states that ''"The Senators and Representatives"'' of [[United States Congress|Congress]] ''"shall in all Cases, except [[Treason]], [[Felony]], and [[Breach of the peace|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 intended purpose is to prevent a [[U.S. President]] or other officials of the [[Executive (government)|executive branch]] from having members arrested on a pretext to prevent them from voting a certain way or otherwise taking actions with which the president might disagree. It also protects members from civil suits related to their official duties.<ref>{{cite web |title=ArtI.S6.C1.1.3 Speech and Debate Privilege |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-1-3/ALDE_00001048/ |website=Constitution Annotated |publisher=United States Congress |access-date=18 January 2021 |quote=to protect the integrity of the legislative process by insuring the independence of individual legislators |archive-date=13 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220613181440/https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-1-3/ALDE_00001048/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

A similar clause in many [[state constitution (United States)|state constitutions]] protects members of [[state legislature (United States)|state legislatures]]. Legislators elsewhere in the world are often similarly protected under the doctrine of [[parliamentary immunity]].

== Case law ==

=== ''Gravel v. United States'': congressional aides and private publication ===
{{Main article|Gravel v. United States}}

On {{#dateformat:June 15, 1971}}, [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Mike Gravel]] ([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]]-[[Alaska]]) received a copy of the [[Pentagon Papers]] from [[Ben Bagdikian]], an editor at ''[[The Washington Post]]''.<ref name="How">[http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/2/how_the_pentagon_papers_came_to "How the Pentagon Papers Came to be Published by the Beacon Press: A Remarkable Story Told by Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Dem Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel and Unitarian Leader Robert West". ''Democracy Now.'' July 2, 2007.] Accessed June 14, 2008.</ref> Over the next several days, Gravel (who was [[dyslexia|dyslexic]]) was assisted by his congressional office staff in reading and analyzing the report.<ref name="How" /> Worried his home might be raided by the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]], Gravel smuggled the report, which filled two large suitcases, into his Senate office, which was being guarded by disabled Vietnam veterans.<ref name="How" />

On the evening of {{#dateformat:June 29, 1971}}, Gravel attempted to read the Pentagon Papers into the ''[[Congressional Record]]''.<ref name="GravelEd">"Preface". In ''The Pentagon Papers: The Defense Department History of United States Decision making on Vietnam.'' Vol. 1. Senator Gravel Edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.</ref> A lack of a [[quorum]], however, prevented the Senate from convening.<ref name="How" /><ref name="GravelEd" /> As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Gravel convened a meeting of the subcommittee and spent an hour reading part of the Pentagon Papers into the record.<ref name="How" /> Prevented by his dyslexia from continuing, Gravel had the remainder of the Pentagon Papers entered into the record.<ref name="How" /><ref name="GravelEd" />

Gravel arranged to have the Pentagon Papers published by a private publisher, [[Beacon Press]], a [[Nonprofit organization|nonprofit]] book [[publisher]] owned by the [[Unitarian Universalist Association]].<ref name="GravelEd" />

A federal [[grand jury]] was empaneled to investigate possible violations of federal law in the release of the report. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was [[subpoena]]ed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers. Senator Gravel [[intervenor|intervened]] and asked a court to [[quash]] the subpoena, contending that forcing Rodberg to testify would violate the Speech or Debate Clause.<ref>''Gravel v. United States'', [[case citation|408 U.S. 606]], 608–609 (1972).</ref> A federal [[United States district court|district court]] refused to grant the motion to quash but did agree to proscribe certain questions.<ref name="Doe">''United States v. Doe'', [[case citation|332 F.Supp. 930]] (Mass.1971).</ref> The trial court also held that publication of the Pentagon Papers by a private press was not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.<ref name="Doe" /> The [[United States Court of Appeals|Court of Appeals]] affirmed the district court's ruling, although it modified the categories of barred questions.<ref>''United States v. Doe'', [[case citation|455 F.2d 753]] (CA1 1972).</ref> The United States appealed the barring of questions, and Senator Gravel appealed the ruling regarding publication. The [[United States Supreme Court]] granted [[certiorari]].<ref>''Gravel v. United States'', [[case citation|405 U.S. 916]] (1972).</ref>

In ''[[Gravel v. United States]]'', [[case citation|408 U.S. 606]] (1972), the Supreme Court held (5–4) that the privileges of the Speech or Debate Clause extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held, "the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself".<ref>''Gravel v. United States'', 408 U.S. 606, 622, 627.</ref>

The Court refused to protect congressional aides either from prosecution for criminal conduct or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes.<ref>''Gravel v. United States'', 408 U.S. 606, 622.</ref> The Supreme Court also vacated the lower court's order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the [[absolute privilege|privilege is absolute]].<ref>''Gravel v. United States'', 408 U.S. 606, 627–629.</ref>

The Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling regarding private publication. "[Private] publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence."<ref>''Gravel v. United States'', 408 U.S. 606, 625.</ref><ref>[[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] [[Potter Stewart]] dissented in part, concluding that the Court had too narrowly construed the protections granted by the Speech or Debate Clause. Justice Stewart would have extended the protections of the clause to cover testify before a grand jury about preparing for legislative acts. ''Gravel v. United States'', 408 U.S. 606, 629ff.</ref><ref>In his dissent, [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] [[William O. Douglas]] argued that the private publication was an adjunct of speech or debate function of Senator Gravel, and was therefore protected speech. ''Gravel v. United States'', 408 U.S. 606, 633ff.</ref><ref>In his dissent, [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justice]] [[William J. Brennan, Jr.]] disagreed with the majority's narrow construction of the Speech or Debate Clause, and defined a much broader conception of the right. Brennan, joined by Justices Douglas and [[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]], would also. ''Gravel v. United States'', 408 U.S. 606, 633ff.</ref>

The Gravel case narrowed the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause.<ref>"Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate Clause". ''Yale Law Journal.'' 88:6 (May 1979); "The Speech or Debate Clause Protection of Congressional Aides". ''Yale Law Journal''. 91:5 (April 1982); Epstein, Lee and Walker, Thomas G. ''Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints.'' 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. {{ISBN|1-56802-822-9}}</ref>

=== ''United States v. Rayburn House Office Building'': searches of congressional offices ===

In May 2006, the [[FBI]] raided the office of Representative [[William J. Jefferson]], a [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] congressman from [[Louisiana]], in the [[Rayburn House Office Building]] on Capitol Hill.<ref name="RaidQuestioned">{{cite news|first1=Dan|last1=Eggen|first2=Shailagh|last2=Murray|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201080.html|title=FBI Raid on Lawmaker's Office Is Questioned|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=May 23, 2006}}</ref> The raid took place during the fourteenth month of an investigation into Jefferson's business ventures in Africa. 

The FBI raid prompted a bipartisan uproar,<ref name="Lengel">{{cite news|first=Allan|last=Lengel|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080300696.html|title=Rep. Jefferson Wins Ruling Against FBI|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=August 4, 2007}}</ref> with immediate objections from congressional leaders in both parties, who said that the raid was inappropriately aggressive and violated the Speech or Debate Clause.<ref name="RaidQuestioned"/> In a statement, Republican [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives|Speaker of the House]] [[J. Dennis Hastert]] stated: "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case. Insofar as I am aware, since the founding of our Republic 219 years ago, the Justice Department has never found it necessary to do what it did Saturday night, crossing this Separation of Powers line, in order to successfully prosecute corruption by Members of Congress. Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years."<ref name="RaidQuestioned"/> Democratic House Minority Leader [[Nancy Pelosi]] stated that while "members of Congress must obey the law and cooperate fully with any criminal investigation", investigations "must be conducted in accordance with Constitutional protections and historical precedent".<ref name="RaidQuestioned"/> A number of legal experts stated that the raid was unconstitutional.

Jefferson challenged the raid as a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, and in 2007, in the case ''United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2113, Washington, D.C. 20515'', the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] unanimously ruled, 3–0, that the FBI's search was unconstitutional and ordered the FBI to return privileged documents seized in the raid.<ref name="Lengel"/><ref name="USRayburn">''United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2113, Washington, D.C. 20515'', 497 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2007).</ref> The court held that "the Congressman is entitled ... to the return of all materials (including copies) that are privileged legislative materials under the Speech or Debate Clause. Where the Clause applies its protection is absolute."<ref name="USRayburn"/> The FBI was allowed to retain non-privileged material.<ref name="Lengel"/><ref name="USRayburn"/> While the Justice Department used special "Filter Team" procedures to review documents to determine whether they were related to legislative activity, the court found that this "would not have avoided the violation of the Speech or Debate Clause because they denied the Congressman any opportunity to identify and assert the privilege with respect to legislative materials before their compelled disclosure to Executive agents."<ref name="USRayburn"/> 

The Supreme Court declined to review the D.C. Circuit's decision.<ref>{{cite news|first=David|last=Stout|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/washington/31cnd-scotus.html|title=Justices Let Stand Ruling on Illegal F.B.I. Search|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=March 31, 2008}}</ref> Jefferson was later convicted on the basis of other, unrelated evidence; in 2009, he was found guilty of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering in connection with his acceptance of bribes and payoffs in connection with these ventures; he was acquitted of several other charges.<ref>{{cite news|first=David|last=Stout|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/us/06jefferson.html?_r=0|title=Ex-Rep. Jefferson Convicted in Bribery Scheme|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=August 5, 2009}}</ref>

=== ''Wuterich v. Murtha'': defamation actions arising from comments made in legislative role ===

In August 2006, U.S. Representative [[John Murtha]] was sued by [[U.S. Marine Corps]] Staff Sergeant [[Frank D. Wuterich]], over statements that Murtha had made to reporters about the [[Haditha massacre]],<ref name="Cullinan">{{cite news|first=Kathleen|last=Cullinan|url=https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/murthas-immunity-claim-upheld-defamation-suit|title=Murtha's immunity claim upheld in defamation suit|publisher=[[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]]|date=April 14, 2009}}</ref> an incident in [[Haditha]], Iraq in which 24 civilians were killed after U.S. troops under Wuterich, a squad leader, opened fire.<ref name="WilsonMartinez">{{cite web|first1=Stan |last1=Wilson|first2=Michael|last2=Martinez|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/justice/california-iraq-trial/|title=Marine in Haditha, Iraq, killings gets demotion, pay cut|website=[[CNN]]|date=January 24, 2012}}</ref> (Wuterich was later [[court-martial]]ed, and pleaded guilty to one count of negligent dereliction of duty in connection with the Haditha killings in a plea agreement with military prosecutors, following an investigation begun in March 2006.<ref name="WilsonMartinez"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Asser |first1=Martin |title=What happened at Haditha? |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm |website=[[BBC]] |access-date=18 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060716153701/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5033648.stm |archive-date=16 Jul 2006 |date=31 May 2006 |quote=on 9 March the top commanders in Baghdad began a criminal investigation}}</ref>)

In his 2006 complaint, Wuterich sued Murtha, alleging that the congressman's comments to the press that the Haditha killings constituted "cold-blooded murder and [[war crime]]s" were defamatory and an [[invasion of privacy]].<ref name="Cullinan"/><ref>{{cite news|first=Kimberly|last=Hefling|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/02/AR2006080201740.html|title=Marine Sues Congressman for Defamation|agency=[[Associated Press]]|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=August 2, 2006}}</ref> The remarks were made at a press conference and in a follow-up television interview.<ref name="MurthaHabitha">{{cite web|first=John|last=Bresnahan|title=Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case|url=https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2007/09/federal-judge-orders-murtha-to-testify-in-haditha-defamation-case-003400 |website=[[Politico]]|date=September 28, 2007}}</ref> Wuterich also sought to compel Murtha to sit for a [[Deposition (law)|deposition]] in the civil case.<ref>{{cite web|first=Kimberly|last=Hefling|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-18-2909509552_x.htm|title=House member argues for immunity from lawsuit|agency=[[Associated Press]]|date=November 18, 2008}}</ref> 

In 2007, U.S. District Judge [[Rosemary M. Collyer]] ruled that Murtha must testify in the defamation case; in response, commentators expressed concern that Murtha was acting as a lawmaker and was therefore protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.<ref name="MurthaHabitha"/> Murtha appealed, arguing that because he was acting in his legislative role when making the comments he had immunity from the lawsuit under the [[Westfall Act]].<ref>{{cite news|first=Kimberly|last=Hefling|url=http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-11-18-2909509552_x.htm|title=House member argues for immunity from lawsuit|agency=[[Associated Press]]|date=November 18, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Yachnin |first1=Jennifer |title=Court to Rule on Protected Speech in Murtha Case |url=https://www.rollcall.com/2008/11/18/court-to-rule-on-protected-speech-in-murtha-case/ |website=[[Roll Call (newspaper)|Roll Call]] |access-date=18 January 2021 |date=18 November 2008 |quote=is therefore protected under the Westfall Act... Instead, the government has moved to substitute the United States as the defendant in the case, effectively rendering it moot.}}</ref><ref name="DCCirWuterich"/> The Westfall Act is a federal statute that "accords federal employees absolute immunity from common-law [[tort]] claims arising out of acts they undertake in the course of their official duties", and immunizes such employees by substituting the United States itself for the employee as defendant in a case.<ref name="DCCirWuterich"/><ref>[https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/immunity/osborn.htm ''Osborn v. Haley'', 549 U.S. 225 (2007)]</ref> In 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Murtha's favor, accepting his argument that he was acting in an official capacity, concluding that he was immune from suit, remanding the case to the district court and ordering dismissal of the case for lack of [[subject-matter jurisdiction]] due to [[sovereign immunity]].<ref name="DCCirWuterich">''[https://casetext.com/case/wuterich-v-murtha Wuterich v. Murtha]'', 562 F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 2009)</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-14-murtha-marine_N.htm|title=Court: Marine can't sue Rep. Murtha for defamation|agency=[[Associated Press]]|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|date=April 14, 2009}}</ref>

=== Smith special counsel investigation: vice presidents ===
[[Mike Pence]], [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] of the United States in the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|first Trump administration]], was requested by the [[Smith special counsel investigation|Jack Smith special counsel investigation]] to turn over evidence relating to Smith's investigation surrounding the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack|January 6 Capitol attack]]. A judge ruled in 2023 that the Speech or Debate Clause applies to the vice president whenever they are serving in their role as [[President of the United States Senate|President of the Senate]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Boasberg |first=James |author-link=James Boasberg |date=2023-06-09 |title=Ex Parte to Government and Pence Only |url=https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23840379/penceruling1.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230610004503/https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23840379/penceruling1.pdf |archive-date=2023-06-10 |access-date=2025-01-31 |pages=7-8}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=March 28, 2023 |title=Judge orders Pence to give evidence |url=https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-jan-6-probe-b2309659.html |access-date=December 11, 2023|website=[[The Independent]] |language=en|first=Andrew|last=Feinberg}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States]]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}


{{US Constitution}}
{{USArticleI}}
{{United States Congress}}
{{US federal public corruption law}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Speech Or Debate Clause}}
[[Category:Clauses of the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Legal immunity]]
[[Category:Speech or Debate Clause case law|*]]