WASHINGTON, March 31, 2008
High Court Declines Rep. Jefferson Case
Justices Refuse To Review Ruling That FBI Search Violated Louisiana Congressman's Rights
-
Rep. William Jefferson, D-La. has pleaded not guilty to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)
-
Timeline Jefferson Bribery Probe La. congressman indicted on 16 counts ranging from racketeering to conspiracy.
-
Interactive The Supreme Court History, traditions and key cases, plus what it takes to get on the bench.
The court declined to review an appeals court ruling that the FBI reviewed legislative documents in the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., in violation of the Constitution.
Jefferson has pleaded not guilty to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. His trial has been delayed indefinitely.
While the Bush administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said last month that he would prefer Congress and the Justice Department reach agreement about any future searches.
The ruling "is jeopardizing ongoing public corruption investigations," the Justice Department said in urging the justices to accept its appeal.
If allowed to stand, the ruling also would essentially prevent investigators from searching lawmakers' offices because it requires the FBI to give the lawmakers advance notice, the department said.
"The bottom line is that, if the government cannot search a member's office in the manner authorized by the search warrant here ... the government cannot do so in any meaningful manner and congressional offices may become a 'sanctuary for crime,"' the Justice Department said.
Yet Mukasey said in testimony to Congress that an agreement between lawmakers and his agency would be better than a court-issued "bright-line ruling that one of us can't live with or would find it awkward to live with."
At issue is a constitutional provision known as the speech or debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work.
The question for the court was whether the protection also applies to searches.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said it does.
The appeals court did not say lawmakers would need to have advance notice of the FBI's arrival. Rather, the court said the Justice Department can't broadly review legislative records. One solution mentioned in the opinion was for FBI agents to lock down the office, then allow the lawmaker to set aside disputed documents. A judge would decide whether the records could be seized.
Officials said they took extraordinary steps - including using an FBI "filter team" not involved in the criminal case - to review the congressional documents. Government attorneys said the Constitution was not intended to shield lawmakers from prosecution for political corruption.
Prosecutors have said they can proceed to trial without waiting for the contested documents.
The indictment against Jefferson alleges that he received more than $500,000 in bribes and demanded millions more between 2000 and 2005, including $90,000 he received from an FBI informant that was later found in the freezer of his Washington home.
Prosecutors contend he used his influence as chairman of the congressional Africa Investment and Trade Caucus to broker deals in Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon and other African nations on behalf of those who paid bribes to him.
The case is U.S. v. Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2113, 07-816.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Supreme Court
Add a Comment See all 26 Comments
- Everyone knows freezers are a lot safer than banks.
- Reply to this comment
- The congressmen was caught red handed, perfect example of denial.poor fool.
- Reply to this comment
- What a crock of ***! I guess I''m not surprised anymore, dems get away with murder while repubs are guilty even if it''s not proven.
- Reply to this comment
- The court declined to review an appeals court ruling that the FBI reviewed legislative documents in the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., in violation of the Constitution.
******************************************
The Bush adminstration doesn''t care about the constitution. After all, "It''s just a dam*ned piece of paper." GWB - Reply to this comment
- A) We''re all innocent until PROVEN guilty.
B) If Jefferson or any other Rep. (D) or (R) is proven guilty they should spend quality time away from their families in a facility designated by the court.
C) If the SC''s duty is to uphold the Constitution, they should have backed up the appelate court as this was a Constitutionally illegal search.
D) Since it''s a Constitutional problem, the Congress can''t do anything direct to void the law. - Reply to this comment
- Note- correction: it depends on what the meaning of ''is'' is! Sorry about that, I got in a hurry.
- Reply to this comment
- "It appears the SC does not know its'''''''' function---to protect the public against criminals!"
No, that''''s the job of the legislative and executive branches. The SCOTUS decides the Constitutionality of the laws made and measures taken by the other two branches.
Posted by SukieTawdry at 03:12 PM : Mar 31, 2008
My response:
Basically, Congress makes law, Chief Exec enforces law, & SC rules on constitutionality.
BUT---implied---implicite in their rulings---the net affect IS TO protect society against criminals & criminal acts! Do you see THAT?!
SukieTawdry you''re ''splitting hairs''! It reminds me of Bill Clinton when he said, ''it depends on what the meaning of ''the'' is?! I suspect you''re smarter than this!
Also, please cite the poster whose comments you''re commenting on. Thanks. Have a good day. - Reply to this comment
- "It appears the SC does not know its'''' function---to protect the public against criminals!"
No, that''s the job of the legislative and executive branches. The SCOTUS decides the Constitutionality of the laws made and measures taken by the other two branches. - Reply to this comment
- Gee one of Bush''s boy''s outs a CIA agent and nothing happens. Attorney General''s are fired, and the people who replace them go after Democrats. The people who are asked to appear before an inquire into the matter, won''t oh and who did they work for.?
This administration, is full of crooks, look around. They''ve lined their pockets at the expense of American lives. Bush and his people believe, we''re here to service them, not the other way around. - Reply to this comment
- The Supreme Court did their job. They assessed that the Appellate Court had ruled correctly. They didn''''t need to issue an opinion.
You''''re just pisssed because they didn''''t do what YOU wanted them to do.
Posted by FloydZepp at 12:43 PM : Mar 31, 2008
My response:
First, I am NOT---as you say---pissed off---regardless of how they ruled.
Second, they don''t have to do what I want, and in fact DIDN''T!
Third, I''m disappointed in this SC because---in my opinion---they do a poor job! Either it takes them years to decide on the obvious, or they refuse to recuse themselves when they should, or they decline to overrule a ''buddy'' in a lower appellate court, or they refuse to rule in cases in which they should---in my opinion!
Finally, this is supposed to be the TOP court in America, but you''d never know it!
If you think they do a good job---fine---that''s your opinion. Take care! :) - Reply to this comment
- What,
Congress in not above the law. What do you mean.
An I always though Congress and Holeywood stars were all above the law. Untouchable to the likes of normal people.
We need to take the caining for those to "pure" to be actually punished. - Reply to this comment
- A good ruling. The offices of congress cannot be used as a safe zone for criminal activity. The FBI has proven its motives were not political and its efforts resulted in obtaining criminal evidence. Clearly the disgustingly unhonorable Jefferson is misusing his office for personal gain.
Even though Jefferson is a Democrat the White House asked the supreme court to intervene? One would expect the Whitehouse to use this opportunity to sack an opposing party member. Why is it supporting this representative of the US? Because it know that what the FBI could set a precidence and the Whitehouse has been used as a safe house from criminal activity for so many years that sshould the FBI get a warrant to search the Whitehouse GW and his political machine will fall into the news and be exposed as a political mafia. - Reply to this comment
- The jokes on you...you seem to forget that FBI raid and Jefferson''''s indictment occurred before the November 2006 election. And that his constituency re-elected him!
Unlike Delay, would was probably going to lose his re-election campaign...hmmmm
Posted by ozilot at 01:21 PM : Mar 31, 2008
The folks in Louisiana have combined politics & criminal activity in such perfect symmetry that it could be considered an art form. Kinda like the way the folks from Arkansas combined sodomy & banjo music. - Reply to this comment
- Congress has no immunity other than that expressly stated in the Constitution.
- Reply to this comment
- To make change possible, just vote for the second name on the ballot for any office as the incumbent is always listed first. Do this with all federal offices and in six years, you will see changes This is how simple it is to keep voting for the challengers and the government will gradually change. NO INCUMBENTS need to be returned to office.
Posted by mjlewis6 at 01:02 PM : Mar 31, 2008
Term limits would work too. No more than two terms for any single political office. There are politicians who have held the same office for 25 or 30 years. - Reply to this comment
- Washington has long been a hot spot for corruption. At issue is a broken form of government bent upon self preservation at any and all cost at the peoples expense.
As a Law biding citizen I am simply heart broken at what goes on in Washington and in congress and it is about time we clean the whole city and wash the filth away.
Unfortunately most people like the power play and will not vote out such for a change but we can always Hope and pray they will wake up.
I an a republican who is not voteing the party line. McCain is a fool a true Blue American but a fool none the less and not worthy of the top job in this Nation
Hillary would do no better.
Yes it is time for change and for someone to wipe the whole city off the map - Reply to this comment
- Washington has long been a hot spot for corruption. At issue is a broken form of government bent upon self preservation at any and all cost at the peoples expense.
As a Law biding citizen I am simply heart broken at what goes on in Washington and in congress and it is about time we clean the whole city and wash the filth away.
Unfortunately most people like the power play and will not vote out such for a change but we can always Hope and pray they will wake up.
I an a republican who is not voteing the party line. McCain is a fool a true Blue American but a fool none the less and not worthy of the top job in this Nation
Hillary would do no better.
Yes it is time for change and for someone to wipe the whole city off the map - Reply to this comment
- This is not even close to the Delay issue. This clown should be put in jail immediately, no bail, no nothing. The people who elected him should be screaming at the top of their lungs. As far as the SC, they should do their jobs or resign.
- Reply to this comment
- Jefferson''s a crook. You don''t keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash in your freezer if you''re an honest man.
There are laws which govern the gathering of evidence against crooks. If you violate them, as the DOJ did, you deserve to lose any evidence you obtained illegally. This was a keystone cops raid and the people who conducted it should be embarrassed. Quite obviously they were told, as the telecoms were, that it was okay to break the law because the president said so.
When will these thugs in Washington learn that the rules apply to them, too? - Reply to this comment
- Once again, we see that the Supreme Court voluntarily refuses to act---to do THEIR job---and make a ruling!
The result of which is to protect Mr. Jefferson from being prosecuted for his crimes! It appears the SC does not know its'' function---to protect the public against criminals! And chooses to protect them if they are ''white collar'' and particularly if they are politicians.
WE, the public, must decide what if any relevancy the SC has or doesn''t have in our lives anymore. - Reply to this comment
