Government challenges lawmaker’s right to appeal
on Jul 13, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Impact of Supreme Court rulings on later cases — a continuing series
Precedent at issue: DiBella v. U.S. (1962)
The Justice Department on Thursday argued in federal court that Rep. William Jefferson, a member of Congress under investigation in a bribery scandal, has no right to pursue an immediate appeal to challenge the FBI seizure of papers and computer disks from his Capitol Hill office. The Department did so in opposing a stay of a District Court ruling against the Louisiana Democrat’s legal challenge. The opposition brief can be found here
U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Washington, D.C., on Monday upheld the FBI’s authority to carry out the search of Jefferson’s congressional office, and denied a request to return the seized materials to him and to bar prosecutors from making any use of them. An earlier post on the judge’s ruling is here. Jefferson’s lawyer has now appealed that ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court and, in the meantime, has asked Judge Hogan to stay his decision.
In response, the Justice Department said “there is a substantial question whether Rep. Jefferson may appeal the order at this time.” It went on to argue that, even if he may appeal, his challenge “has little chance of succeeding.”
The opposition relies primarily upon DiBella v. U.S., a 1962 Supreme Court precedent that declares that a District Court decision denying a motion to return property seized in an allegedly unlawful search is not appealable. The Court said in that opinion: “An order granting or denying a pre-indictment motion to suppress does not fall within any class of independent proceedings otherwise recognized by this Court [as final and thus appealable], and there is every practical reason for denying it such recognition.”
That decision, the Department said in Jefferson’s case, “made clear that the only exception” to the rule against a pre-trial appeal “is for cases in which the motion is solely for return of property and is in no way tied to a criminal prosecution” in being against the would-be appealing party. In Jefferson’s case, it said, his motion for return of the seized property is tied to an ongoing criminal prosecution. Moreover, it added, the motion goes beyond a request for return of the materials, to a plea for a bar on prosecutors’ review of the materials.
There is no indication when Judge Hogan will rule on the stay request.
