Bellaire High School Baseball Coach, Exemple Question Grand Oral Mercatique, How To Make A Lateral Flow Test Negative, What Can I Bring To Ait Fort Gordon, Aronimink Country Club Membership Cost, Articles R

Studio B The considerations voiced by our concurring colleague and the district court may demonstrate good faith by the Executive, but they fail to adhere to this court's interpretation of the scope of the testimonial privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause, much less to the Supreme Court's interpretation of what constitutes core legislative activities, see Brewster, 408 U.S. at 526, and the history of the Clause. Fax: (202) 225-2908 Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC (Google Maps) According to the brief for the Executive, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General directed an immediate freeze on any review of the seized materials. Subsequently, the court allowed the Executive to review seized materials that the Congressman has conceded on remand are not privileged under the Speech or Debate Clause. Order of Nov. 14, 2006. 654; see, e.g., In re 3021 6th Ave. N., 237 F.3d at 1041. 2175 RHOB (Education and the Workforce Committee) 2172 RHOB (Foreign Affairs Committee) Congressman Jefferson argued in the district court that he has suffered irreparable harm with no adequate remedy available at law because the violation of his constitutional rights cannot be vindicated by an action at law or damages or any other traditional relief.7 On appeal, however, the Congressman makes no claim that the functioning of his office has been impaired by loss of access to the original versions of the seized documents; the Remand Order directed that he be given copies of all seized documents. Washington, DC 20515 at 420. Because Gravel stresses the significance of criminal proceedings, rather than their target, and because his aide can invoke the Clause only if the Member can do so, the majority is wrong in maintaining that Gravel's language as construed in Brown & Williamson is limited to third-party crime.11, Moreover, as the government points out, to conclude that the Clause's shield protects against any Executive Branch exposure to records of legislative acts would jeopardize law enforcement tools that have never been considered problematic. Appellee's Br. Abner J. Mikva at 18; Amicus Br. 2531. Room No. 62 F.3d at 419-20 (distinguishing Gravel's criminal context from civil subpoena). See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-04, 94 S.Ct. This chill runs counter to the Clause's purpose of protecting against disruption of the legislative process. 390 CHOB (Cannon Caucus Room), Longworth Lobby Stakeout East 119 D Street, NE