No Judicial Review Of Congressional Censure

Congressman Charles Rangel’s effort to seek judicial review of his 2010 censure was rebuffed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Public service has its benefits and its burdens. Congressmen, for example, enjoy absolute immunity from suit for their conduct in the legislative arena. That same immunity, however, prevents them from airing their legislative disagreements in a judicial forum. Representative Charles Rangel asks this Court to review his 2010 censure by the United States House of Representatives. But the Constitution—specifically, the Speech or Debate Clause—prevents us from doing so. Rangel must vindicate his reputation in the one court that can hear his claim: the court of public opinion. We affirm the district court‘s dismissal of his complaint.

Holding

the Speech or Debate Clause prevents us from entertaining this action. The same legislative immunity would presumably protect Rangel if he ever found himself on the other side of the “v. ”   For now, it compels dismissal of his suit. We affirm the district court‘s decision on this ground and have no call to consider the other defects it found in Rangel‘s complaint.

(Mike Frisch)