The Hill search controversy escalates

Lawyers for the leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives have asked a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to rule that the Justice Department acted unconstitutionally in staging a prolonged search of the congressional office of Rep. William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat under investigation on possible bribery charges. On Wednesday, the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed a friend-of-court brief in the case in which the congressman is seeking the return of all items taken from his legislative office.

The leaders asked U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan to rule that both the warrant — issued by Hogan himself — and the search violated constitutional protection given the House in carrying out its legislative duties. But the leaders did not immediately embrace Jefferson’s demand for a return of the papers and computer hard drives gathered up in the 18-hour search of his office overnight on May 20-21.

Instead, Hogan was urged, in fashioning a remedy, to “take into account…the outcome of current negotiations between the House and the Justice Department aimed at devising an agreed-upon set of protocols under which search warrants can be executed constituitonally on House offices.”

The 43-page document, along with ten appendices, lays out in full the House’s constitutional arguments. The document often uses sharply critical language in describing the conduct of the FBI in the Capitol Hill search, and directly challenges an FBI affidavit that implied that the search was necessary because Jefferson might have destroyed documents. Moreover, it accuses the Department of relying on discredited legal precedent.

In a challenge to Judge Hogan, the House leaders wrote: “It is easy to treat this case, as many in the media and public have, as a simple matter of subjecting Members of Congress to the same laws as everyone else, or bringing an allegedly corrupt Congressman to justice. It is much more difficult to recognize the grave threat the Justice Department’s unprecedented actions pose to our tripartite system of government and heretofore remarkably successful system of checks and balances. However, it is essential that this Court do so.”

While the Department may have been “well-intentioned,” the brief suggested, it is a “dangerous assumption” to trust the Departrment “not to abuse the precedent this case would establish.”

The House filing, including ten appendices, can be found here.

Earlier, on May 30, the Justice Department filed its response, vigorously defending its actions. That document has not been posted on this blog previously. It can be found here.

An earlier post on this developing constitutional dispute can be found here. That post includes links to filings by Rep. Jefferson.

Judge Hogan has scheduled a hearing in the case for next Friday.