Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.[1]
The privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.
On Tuesday, June 15, 1971, SenatorMike Gravel (D-Alaska) received a copy of the Pentagon Papers from Ben Bagdikian, an editor at The Washington Post.[2] Over the next several days, Gravel (who was dyslexic) was assisted by his congressional office staff in reading and analyzing the report.[2] Worried his home might be raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Gravel smuggled the report (which filled two large suitcases) into his congressional office, which was then guarded by disabled Vietnam veterans.[2]
On the evening of June 29, 1971, Gravel attempted to read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.[3] A lack of a quorum, however, prevented the Senate from convening.[2][3] 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.[2] Prevented by his dyslexia from continuing, Gravel had the remainder of the Pentagon Papers entered into the record.[2][3]
A federal grand jury was subsequently empaneled to investigate possible violations of federal law in the release of the report. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers. Senator Gravel intervened and asked a court to quash the subpoena, contending that forcing Rodberg to testify would violate the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.[4]
A district court refused to grant the motion to quash but did agree to proscribe certain questions.[5] The trial court also held that publication of the Pentagon Papers by a private press was not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.[5] The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling (although it modified the categories of barred questions).[6] The United States appealed the barring of questions, and Senator Gravel appealed the ruling regarding publication. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.[7]
Majority holding
In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the court of appeals and substituting its own, the court declared that "the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself."[8] However, the Court refused to protect congressional aides from prosecution for criminal conduct, or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third party crimes.[9] The Supreme Court also threw out the lower courts' order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute.[10]
However, the Court upheld the district court's 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."[11]
Dissents
Associate JusticePotter 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 testimony before a grand jury about preparing for legislative acts as well.[12]
In his dissent, Associate JusticeWilliam O. Douglas argued that the private publication was an adjunct of speech or debate function of Senator Gravel, and was therefore protected speech. He further condemned politicians for excessive secrecy and the media for largely failing to challenge it:
The story of the Pentagon Papers is a chronicle of suppression of vital decisions to protect the reputations and political hides of men who worked an amazingly successful scheme of deception on the American people. They were successful not because they were astute, but because the press had become a frightened, regimented, submissive instrument, fattening on favors from those in power and forgetting the great tradition of reporting. To allow the press further to be cowed by grand jury inquiries and prosecution is to carry the concept of "abridging" the press to frightening proportions.[13]
In his dissent, Associate JusticeWilliam 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 was joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall.[13]
Significance
The case is considered a landmark for not only reaffirming the constitutional protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause, but for narrowing it as well.[14][15][16]
^ abcdef"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.
^ abcd"Preface." In The Pentagon Papers: The Defense Department History of United States Decisionmaking on Vietnam. Vol. 1. Senator Gravel Edition. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.
^"Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate Clause". Yale Law Journal. 88 (6): 1280–1298. 1979. doi:10.2307/795632. JSTOR 795632.
^"The Speech or Debate Clause Protection of Congressional Aides". Yale Law Journal. 91 (5): 961–973. 1982. doi:10.2307/796073. JSTOR 796073.
^Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G. (2004). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Institutional Powers and Constraints (5th ed.). Washington: CQ Press. ISBN1-56802-822-9.
Further reading
Ervin, Sam J. Jr. (1973). "The Gravel and Brewster Cases: An Assault on Congressional Independence". Virginia Law Review. 59 (2): 175–195. doi:10.2307/1071992. JSTOR 1071992.
External links
Text of Gravel v. United States, 408U.S. 606 (1972) is available from:CourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of CongressOyez (oral argument audio)
January 10, 2023
gravel, united, states, 1972, case, regarding, protections, offered, speech, debate, clause, united, states, constitution, case, supreme, court, united, states, held, that, privileges, immunities, constitution, speech, debate, clause, enjoyed, members, congres. Gravel v United States 408 U S 606 1972 was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution In the case the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution s Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides but not to activity outside the legislative process 1 Gravel v United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued April 19 20 1972Decided June 29 1972Full case nameGravel v United StatesCitations408 U S 606 more 92 S Ct 2614 33 L Ed 2d 583 1972 U S LEXIS 21Case historyPriorUnited States v Doe 332 F Supp 930 D Mass 1971 455 F 2d 753 1st Cir 1972 cert granted 405 U S 916 1972 HoldingThe privileges of the Constitution s Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides but not to activity outside the legislative process Court membershipChief Justice Warren E Burger Associate Justices William O Douglas William J Brennan Jr Potter Stewart Byron WhiteThurgood Marshall Harry BlackmunLewis F Powell Jr William RehnquistCase opinionsMajorityWhite joined by Burger Blackmun Powell RehnquistDissentStewart in part DissentDouglasDissentBrennan joined by Douglas MarshallLaws appliedU S Const art I 6 cl 1 Contents 1 History 2 Majority holding 3 Dissents 4 Significance 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External linksHistory EditOn Tuesday June 15 1971 Senator Mike Gravel D Alaska received a copy of the Pentagon Papers from Ben Bagdikian an editor at The Washington Post 2 Over the next several days Gravel who was dyslexic was assisted by his congressional office staff in reading and analyzing the report 2 Worried his home might be raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Gravel smuggled the report which filled two large suitcases into his congressional office which was then guarded by disabled Vietnam veterans 2 On the evening of June 29 1971 Gravel attempted to read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record 3 A lack of a quorum however prevented the Senate from convening 2 3 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 2 Prevented by his dyslexia from continuing Gravel had the remainder of the Pentagon Papers entered into the record 2 3 Gravel subsequently arranged to have the Pentagon Papers published by a private publisher The publisher was Beacon Press a non profit book publisher owned by the Unitarian Universalist Association 3 A federal grand jury was subsequently empaneled to investigate possible violations of federal law in the release of the report Leonard Rodberg a Gravel aide was subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers Senator Gravel intervened and asked a court to quash the subpoena contending that forcing Rodberg to testify would violate the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution 4 A district court refused to grant the motion to quash but did agree to proscribe certain questions 5 The trial court also held that publication of the Pentagon Papers by a private press was not protected by the Speech or Debate Clause 5 The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court s ruling although it modified the categories of barred questions 6 The United States appealed the barring of questions and Senator Gravel appealed the ruling regarding publication The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari 7 Majority holding EditIn a 5 4 ruling the Supreme Court held that the privileges of the Constitution s Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides Rejecting the reasoning of the court of appeals and substituting its own the court declared that the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself 8 However the Court refused to protect congressional aides from prosecution for criminal conduct or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third party crimes 9 The Supreme Court also threw out the lower courts order permitting some questions and barring others concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute 10 However the Court upheld the district court s 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 11 Dissents EditAssociate 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 testimony before a grand jury about preparing for legislative acts as well 12 In his dissent 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 He further condemned politicians for excessive secrecy and the media for largely failing to challenge it The story of the Pentagon Papers is a chronicle of suppression of vital decisions to protect the reputations and political hides of men who worked an amazingly successful scheme of deception on the American people They were successful not because they were astute but because the press had become a frightened regimented submissive instrument fattening on favors from those in power and forgetting the great tradition of reporting To allow the press further to be cowed by grand jury inquiries and prosecution is to carry the concept of abridging the press to frightening proportions 13 In his dissent 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 was joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall 13 Significance EditThe case is considered a landmark for not only reaffirming the constitutional protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause but for narrowing it as well 14 15 16 See also EditList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 408 United States v Brewster a related case involving Senator Daniel BrewsterReferences Edit Gravel v United States 408 U S 606 1972 a b c d e f 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 a b c d Preface In The Pentagon Papers The Defense Department History of United States Decisionmaking on Vietnam Vol 1 Senator Gravel Edition Boston Beacon Press 1971 Gravel 408 U S at 608 609 a b United States v Doe 332 F Supp 930 D Mass 1971 United States v Doe 455 F 2d 753 1st Cir 1972 Gravel v United States 405 U S 916 1972 Gravel 408 U S at 622 627 Gravel 408 U S at 622 Gravel 408 U S at 627 629 Gravel 408 U S at 625 Gravel 408 U S at 629 a b Gravel 408 U S at 633 Evidentiary Implications of the Speech or Debate Clause Yale Law Journal 88 6 1280 1298 1979 doi 10 2307 795632 JSTOR 795632 The Speech or Debate Clause Protection of Congressional Aides Yale Law Journal 91 5 961 973 1982 doi 10 2307 796073 JSTOR 796073 Epstein Lee Walker Thomas G 2004 Constitutional Law for a Changing America Institutional Powers and Constraints 5th ed Washington CQ Press ISBN 1 56802 822 9 Further reading EditErvin Sam J Jr 1973 The Gravel and Brewster Cases An Assault on Congressional Independence Virginia Law Review 59 2 175 195 doi 10 2307 1071992 JSTOR 1071992 External links EditText of Gravel v United States 408 U S 606 1972 is available from CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez oral argument audio Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Gravel v United States amp oldid 1114048701, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
