Supreme Court Refuses Appeal of Jefferson DecisionRoll Call reports (sub. req.) that the court has rebuffed the Justice Department’s request for an appeal of last summer’s decision.
That decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals in Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-LA) case found that Constitutional protections meant that the feds could only search a Congressional office if the lawmaker was consulted. The lawmaker would also have the right to review materials. So instead of the feds raiding an office and taking material relevant to the investigation, the court suggested that FBI agents could lock down the office, and then allow the lawmaker to set aside Constitutionally protected documents. A judge would decide whether the records could be taken.
Because of the apparent strength of the feds’ case against Jefferson, the decision is not likely to strike much of a blow there. But prosecutors and watchdogs were dismayed with a ruling that was a definite blow to public corruption prosecutions in general. As CREW’s Melanie Sloan put it, “If I were Ted Stevens, and I had some evidence of wrongdoing, I’d be putting it in my Congressional office, because the court basically just issued a blanket cover against searches…. It’s such a help to any corrupt members of Congress, since it offers so much more protection than was previously offered.”
The Justice Department had argued in its request for an appeal that the decision “‘threatens to complicate numerous ongoing and future investigations’ and hinder the ability to use electronic surveillance” as a means of investigating lawmakers.
Rep. Rick Renzi’s (R-AZ) lawyers have already signaled that the decision will play a role in their defense. And you can be sure that it will play a role in every prosecution of a lawmaker from here on out. Does the decision mean that prosecutors can’t use wiretaps against lawmakers? Does it mean that the feds can’t speak to legislative aides?
