Gravel v. United States
408 U.S. 606 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Speech or Debate Clause privilege extends to a congressional aide for acts that would be considered legislative if performed by the Member of Congress. However, the privilege does not shield a Member or an aide from grand jury inquiry into arrangements for the private publication of materials, as such publication is not an essential part of the legislative process.
Facts:
- Senator Mike Gravel, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, convened a subcommittee meeting on the night of June 29, 1971.
- At the meeting, Senator Gravel read extensively from a copy of a classified Defense Department study known as the Pentagon Papers.
- He then placed the entire 47-volume study into the public record of the subcommittee.
- Leonard Rodberg, who had been added to the Senator's staff earlier that day, assisted Senator Gravel in preparing for and conducting the hearing.
- Following the hearing, Senator Gravel allegedly arranged for Beacon Press, a private publisher, to publish the Pentagon Papers.
- A federal grand jury began an investigation into possible criminal conduct regarding the release and publication of the Pentagon Papers.
- The grand jury subpoenaed Rodberg to testify about his role in these events.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury, investigating the release of the Pentagon Papers, subpoenaed Leonard Rodberg, an aide to Senator Gravel.
- In the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Senator Gravel intervened and filed motions to quash the subpoena, asserting his privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause.
- The District Court denied the motions but entered a protective order shielding inquiry into the subcommittee meeting and Rodberg's assistance, while allowing questions about the subsequent private publication.
- On appeal by both parties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial but modified the protective order. It held that the privilege barred inquiry into the Senator's sources and created a common-law privilege protecting the aide from questions about the private publication.
- The United States (petitioner) and Senator Gravel (petitioner) both sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Speech or Debate Clause privilege 1) extend to a Senator's aide for acts that would be legislative if performed by the Senator, and 2) shield the Senator or his aide from grand jury inquiry into arrangements for the private publication of materials previously entered into the legislative record?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes as to the first part; No as to the second. The Speech or Debate Clause extends to a Senator's aide, but the privilege does not protect a Senator or an aide from grand jury inquiry into arrangements for private publication, as that is not a legislative act. The complexities of the modern legislative process require that a Member's aide be treated as the Member's alter ego for the purposes of the privilege; otherwise, the Clause's purpose to prevent intimidation of legislators would be frustrated. However, the Clause's protection is not absolute and is confined to the sphere of legitimate legislative activity. Legislative acts are those integral to the deliberative and communicative processes of Congress, such as voting, committee reports, and conduct at hearings. Private publication of materials, even those entered into a committee record, is not essential to the deliberations of the Senate and is therefore not part and parcel of the legislative process. Consequently, neither Senator Gravel nor his aide Rodberg is shielded from grand jury questioning about the arrangements with Beacon Press, so long as the questions do not impugn legitimate legislative acts such as what occurred at the subcommittee meeting itself.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
Yes, to both parts of the issue. The Speech or Debate Clause should be construed broadly to insulate both Senator Gravel and his aides from any inquiry concerning the Pentagon Papers, including their publication. The informing function of Congress is a core legislative activity, and publishing the papers is an extension of that function. To treat aides differently would make a mockery of the privilege. Alternatively, the First Amendment protects Beacon Press from any investigation or prosecution for publishing the papers, as they contain historical information, not sensitive future plans, and the press must be free to bare the secrets of government.
Dissenting - Justice Stewart
I dissent from the part of the Court's opinion that allows a legislator to be compelled to testify about the sources of his information. This issue was not properly before the Court and has profound implications for the legislative process. Forcing a Member of Congress to reveal confidential sources would chill both the vigor with which legislators seek information and the willingness of informants to provide it, thereby undermining the public interest in having an informed Congress. The judiciary should balance the claims of the grand jury against the constitutional claims of the Speech or Debate Clause in specific cases rather than adopting a rigid rule.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes, to both parts of the issue. The Court adopts a far too narrow view of the legislative function by excluding the legislator's duty to inform the public about the administration of government. The 'informing function' is a vital legislative task, supported by historical practice and the intent of the Framers like Thomas Jefferson, and it falls within the protections of the Speech or Debate Clause. The Court's distinction between internal deliberations and public communication is artificial. The privilege should therefore shield Senator Gravel from inquiry about his part in the publication and also bar inquiry into the source from which he received the documents, as receiving information is an integral part of preparing for legislative acts.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause. It establishes the key principle that congressional aides are protected as 'alter egos' of the Member, extending the privilege to staff who are essential to the legislative process. However, the decision simultaneously narrows the definition of a 'legislative act' by excluding the 'informing function' when it takes the form of private republication. This creates a critical distinction between acts integral to congressional deliberations (protected) and efforts to disseminate information to the wider public (unprotected), potentially impacting how legislators communicate with their constituents on sensitive matters.
Unlock the full brief for Gravel v. United States