Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Supreme Dicta

Federal Judiciary

: Supreme Dicta

Another great case name

United States v. Rayburn House Office Building Room 2113

Confused? This is yet another example of an "in rem" action, in which the government is attempting to justify the seizure of an asset. And the asset is listed as one of the parties to the action. Don't ask me why...

This case is interesting for reasons other than its cool name; it also involves an interesting question around the separation of powers doctrine. The occupant of Rayburn 2113 is Rep. William Jefferson, who is facing federal corruption charges - bribery and money laundering (this charge should be read literally - Jefferson kept $90,000 hidden in his freezer. Why? Well, money has a tendency to wilt in the summer heat and humidity).

The Supreme Court denied cert. on an appeal by the Bush Administration to keep the papers they seized when the FBI made an unprecedented raid of Jefferson's House office. According to the New York Times:

Without comment, the justices let stand a ruling by a federal appeals court that the Constitution provides members of Congress with a ?nondisclosure privilege? that was violated by the search of Representative William J. Jefferson?s Congressional office.

At issue was the Constitution's Article I guarantee of freedom of speech and debate for members of Congress - "for any speech or debate in either House," a member of Congress "shall not be questioned in any other place." The Bush Administration argued that this raid was not aimed as reprisal for any of Rep. Jefferson's votes or speeches and that a broad interpretation of the "speech and debate" clause could turn Congress into "a sanctuary for crime."

It is not an unreasonable argument, though any charge of corruption usually involves an exchange of money for votes. But I think you need to balance the need for a criminal investigation to proceed against the privacy of members of Congress. Fortunately, the Justice Department is working with the Congress to avoid showdowns like this in the future and take a more collaborative approach to future corruption investigations.

So the papers seized from the House raid will not be used as evidence in Jefferson's trial. But there is still the $90,000 in the freezer. Only a lawyer like Johnny Cochran could explain away that nasty little detail.

Full post as published by Supreme Dicta on April 04, 2008 (boomark / email).