Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is resisting a subpoena in a civil case claiming the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution bars him from testifying:

[Chambliss campaign spokeswoman Michelle Hitt] Grasso said Senate attorneys have told Chambliss he is immune from submitting to a deposition under the “speech or debate” clause of the Constitution, which shields members of Congress from testifying about legislative business in private lawsuits.

Lawyers would like to ask Sen. Chambliss about his communications with the Imperial Sugar Corporation and why he tried to dissuade plaintiffs from suing the company following a deadly explosion and fire at a Georgia refinery earlier this year.

While the Speech or Debate Clause provides Sen. Chambliss with immunity from questions about legislative activity such as the July hearing at which Imperial Sugar’s vice president for operations testified as well as any preparation for that hearing, the Clause does not protect the senator from having to answer questions about meetings with victims’ families.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan stated it very clearly:

The Speech or Debate Clause does not give Sen. Chambliss blanket immunity from testifying in a civil case simply because he is a member of Congress. As an attorney, Sen. Chambliss should know this. Clearly, he needs to brush up on his constitutional law.

In no case has the Supreme Court ever held that all conduct merely relating the legislative process is protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.

In fact, the Supreme Court has held that members of Congress engage in many activities other than those that are purely legislative. Examples include constituent services, communications with other government agencies, assistance in securing government contracts and speeches delivered outside of Congress.

Earlier today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the indictment of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), clearing the way for the case to go to trial. Rep. Jefferson had sought dismissal of the indictment on the grounds that it was obtained in violation of the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which prohibits the use of legislative material against a member of Congress. The Court of Appeals rejected Rep. Jefferson’s argument, finding that the government can prosecute the case without referencing constitutionally protected legislative material.  The Court's decision can be found here.

CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan made this statement:

While the Constitution protects members of Congress from having evidence of their legislative actions used against them, the Speech or Debate Clause was never intended to allow members of Congress to evade prosecution for criminal acts. The Constitution also entitles a criminal defendant to a speedy trial and we are looking forward to seeing Rep. Jefferson receive one.

More from Politico:

The ruling could allow Jefferson's corruption trial, being held in Alexandria, Va., to move forward, although Jefferson could further delay those proceedings by appealing today's decision. Jefferson was indicted on June 4, 2007, on 16 counts of bribery, fraud and racketeering related to hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes paid to him and family members for help on African telecom contracts. Jefferson has denied the allegations.

The trial of Ted Stevens will begin next week here in Washington:

The 84-year-old Stevens, the Senate's longest-serving Republican, is set to stand trial on charges of lying in Senate disclosure records about hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and home renovations he received from VECO Corp., an oil pipeline services company. VECO Corp. is now owned by Denver-based CH2M Hill.

He has pleaded not guilty to all seven counts and has pushed to get his trial completed before Alaskans vote Nov. 4 on his re-election.

Stevens did not appear at the Tuesday status hearing, but he will have to be in Washington for the trial while his Democratic opponent is campaigning in Alaska.

His lawyers had argued that the whole case is based on information related to his work as an Alaska senator. They also said the government wants to introduce evidence that would require Stevens to talk about his official work to defend himself.

The Constitution prohibits the executive branch, which includes the Justice Department, from using its law enforcement authority in a way that interferes with legislative business under what is called the "speech-or-debate" clause.

But Sullivan said Tuesday he did not see enough of a reason to throw the whole case out. He also said the prosecutors can use their evidence, but he will watch to be sure they don't go too far. Sullivan also said he expects defense lawyers to object to anything that violates Stevens' rights.

"Any potential violation can be thwarted at trial," Sullivan said.

You had to know this was going to happen.  CREW did.

Just over a year ago, in the wake of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the case against William Jefferson, which found that the Constitution's Speech and Debate clause prohibits searches of congressional offices by the executive branch, Melanie Sloan predicted this would become an issue in the case against Senator Ted Stevens:

Nevertheless, this ruling may have a profound impact on the government's ability to thoroughly investigate other cases of congressional corruption. For example, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) now has every incentive to store in his congressional office any document concerning the renovations of his house, secure in the knowledge that it will be beyond the reach of federal investigators.

In fact, that has come to pass. Stevens is now using the speech and defense clause as a defense in his criminal tria to prevent the testimony of his staffers:

Sen. Ted Stevens accused the Justice Department of trampling on the independence of Congress, arguing Thursday that the corruption case against him should be thrown out.

That legal argument will test the limits of a court ruling that prosecutors fear could limit their ability to investigate corruption on Capitol Hill. Stevens said FBI agents went too far when they questioned his Senate aides.

The Alaska Republican is scheduled to go on trial next month on charges that he lied on Senate disclosure records about hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and services he received from a powerful oil services contractor, Veco Corp.

Stevens said the FBI's long-running corruption probe intruded on his Senate affairs. He cited the Constitution's speech-or-debate clause, which prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement authority to interfere with legislative business.

This could actually slow down the proceedings that Stevens was hoping to expedite so it could wrap up before Election Day.

Today's media coverage on the House vote for an investigation of the "Coconut Road" earmark address the concerns raised by CREW after the Senate and House votes.  The reality is the investigation by the Department of Justice won't proceed -- and the rather important document called Constitution of the United States is one of the biggest roadblocks:

But critics contend that House members may be so open to an investigation precisely because they know it won’t go anywhere. “It’s laughable,” said Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “They want the headlines, so they’re going to do this. But it’s an absolute farce.”

Stanley Brand, a former general counsel for the House, said the barriers to investigation and prosecution — especially in the Coconut Road case — arise straight from the Constitution. “The Speech or Debate Clause would prevent Justice from questioning lawmakers about what happened on the House floor or outside in the enrollment process,” he told Politico this week. “That’s the essential nature of the crime, or the alleged crime.”

“There’s nothing outside the scope of the clause,” Brand added. “I don’t know what they’re doing.”

Major decision in from the U.S. Supreme Court today -- a decision not to review the appeal of the U.S. Department of Justice stemming from the case of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). When the Court of Appeals ruled in Jefferson's favor, CREW stated it was "a decision devastating to the investigation and prosecution of congressional corruption." With today's action, the devastating decision stands:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt the Justice Department a major blow in its case against Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) in a decision that could make it more difficult for the government to investigate other members of Congress.

The Supreme Court denied a Justice Department appeal of a lower court ruling that aspects of the FBI raid on Jefferson’s Rayburn office violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause.

Rep. Rick Renzi wants a delay in the start of his trial. Based on this article in CQPolitics, it sounds like his lawyers intend to use the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause as a defense:

Embattled Rep. Rick Renzi , R-Ariz., has asked a federal judge in Arizona to delay his scheduled April 29 trial on conspiracy, fraud, extortion and money laundering charges stemming from a land-swap deal.

Prosecutors will not oppose the Arizona lawmaker’s bid to have his trial deemed a “complex case,” which would allow more time to sort out motions, discovery and other pre-trial issues.

Renzi’s lawyers also said that because he is a sitting congressman who faces allegations related to his legislative activities, they would raise the issue of legislative privilege afforded by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause.

Renzi pleaded not guilty March 4 to a 35-count indictment — handed down Feb. 21 — that charges he conspired with one former business partner in a land-swap scheme and with another associate to commit insurance fraud.

Renzi, 49, maintains he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Today, according to The Politico, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are deciding whether they will hear the an appeal in the case of the raid on the office of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA).   The issue is the constitutionality of the FBI raid on the congressional office of Mr. Jefferson.  The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the raid was unconstitutional.  CREW called that decision "devastating to the investigation and prosecution of congressional corruption."  We could know next week if the Supreme Court will hear the case:

The Supreme Court will consider this Friday whether to take up a Justice Department request to overturn an appeals court ruling finding the May 2006 raid on Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) unconstitutional.

An announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision on whether it will take up the case could come as early as next Monday, although there is no way of actually predicting what the high court will do.

The Justice Department’s request, and a counter-motion by Jefferson’s legal team arguing against Supreme Court intervention, are scheduled to be “distributed for conference” among the justices this Friday. The Supreme Court could place the case on the “Orders List” released the following Monday, or or add the case to its schedule on a future list.

The Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to allow searches of congressional offices, arguing that leaving the August 2007 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - which found the FBI search an unconstitutional violation of Jefferson's privileges under the Speech or Debate Clause - is hampering ongoing criminal investigations of lawmakers.

Jefferson, who is being supported by a bipartisan group of senior House leadership aides, argues that the appeals court ruling was correct. Under the Speech or Debate Clause, legal action cannot be taken against lawmakers and staffers for legislative activities. Jefferson's legal team successfully argued on the appeals level that the FBI search of his office was unconstitutional.

Lawyers for Rep. William Jefferson tried to have the charges against him dismissed claiming the grand jury testimony of the congressman's staff violated the Constitution's speech and debate clause.  The federal district court judge hearing the case did not accept that argument:

The attorneys for Jefferson, who did not appear at the Wednesday hearing, said that testifying about such legislative matters violated the "Speech or Debate" clause of the Constitution meant to shield the law-making process from interference by the executive branch. Attorney Gloria Solomon argued that the government's case, which alleges that Jefferson took nearly $400,000 in bribes to promote companies in Africa, was predicated on the tainted grand jury testimony.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III disagreed. In a ruling from the bench, he said that the staffers' testimony was constitutionally benign and that it only illuminated the source of Jefferson's influence overseas.

"That's why people bribe congressmen, because they have influence," Ellis said.

He said the testimony was not "relevant to the charges" and was only referenced in passing in the June 2007 indictment against Jefferson. Ellis called the defense argument, "wildly far-fetched and simply not plausible."