Facts
- Daniel B. Brewster, a former U.S. Senator from Maryland, was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(1) and 201(g) for soliciting and accepting money in return for being influenced in performing official acts connected to postal-rate legislation.
- Brewster moved pretrial to dismiss the indictment, arguing the Speech or Debate Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, cl. 1) immunized him from prosecution for alleged bribery to perform a legislative act.
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the indictment on Speech or Debate Clause grounds.
- The United States filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
- Brewster argued the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction because the district court’s ruling allegedly functioned as a merits-based summary judgment rather than a dismissal of the indictment.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 to review the district court’s pretrial order dismissing the indictment.
- Whether the Speech or Debate Clause bars prosecution of a former Senator for bribery tied to legislative activity when the case can be proved without inquiry into legislative acts or the motives for performing them.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held it had jurisdiction because the district court’s order, in substance, dismissed the indictment based on a constitutional determination as applied to the indictment’s allegations.
- The Court reversed the dismissal and remanded, holding the Speech or Debate Clause did not require dismissal of the bribery indictment.
- The Court reasoned that the prosecution could proceed so long as it did not require evidence of Brewster’s legislative acts or questioning about legislative motives.
- Vote: 6–3.
Legal Principles
- The Speech or Debate Clause bars judicial inquiry into “legislative acts” and the motivation for performing such acts.
- The Clause does not confer a general immunity for all conduct related to the legislative process; it protects only conduct within the legitimate legislative sphere.
- Solicitation or acceptance of a bribe is not itself a legislative act, and criminal liability may be imposed if the offense is proved without probing protected legislative acts or motives.
- A government appeal lies under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 from a district court order that sets aside or dismisses an indictment, including when dismissal rests on a constitutional ruling as applied to the indictment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court permitted a federal bribery prosecution against a former Senator to go forward because the Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts and motives, not corrupt agreements to be influenced, and the case could be tried without examining specific legislative acts.