United States v. Robert Menendez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13791
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Senator Robert Menendez was indicted on 22 counts alleging he solicited and accepted gifts from Dr. Salomon Melgen (2006–2013) in exchange for using his office to influence CMS enforcement actions and encourage State/Customs intervention in a Dominican Republic contract dispute.
- CMS investigated Melgen for alleged Medicare overbilling related to multi-dosing of Lucentis; Menendez and staff made contacts with CMS officials (including Acting Administrator Jonathan Blum and Marilyn Tavenner) and met with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius concerning the issue.
- Menendez and staff also communicated with State Department and Customs officials about a Dominican port-security contract (ICSSI) favoring Melgen’s interests, and Menendez met with Assistant Secretary Brownfield about the dispute.
- Melgen allegedly provided reportable gifts (flights, hotels, car service) that Menendez did not disclose on statutory Ethics Act financial reports; Count 22 charges false statements/omissions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and the Ethics in Government Act.
- The district court denied Menendez’s motions to dismiss based on the Speech or Debate Clause, separation-of-powers, and venue; Menendez appealed the Speech or Debate ruling and sought mandamus on venue for Count 22.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: it held the challenged contacts were not protected legislative acts under the Speech or Debate Clause, rejected separation-of-powers arguments about the Ethics Act, and denied mandamus relief on venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Menendez) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Speech or Debate Clause bars prosecution for Menendez’s contacts with Executive officials (CMS, HHS, State, Customs) | Contacts were legislative/oversight (policy discussions, nominee vetting) and thus protected | Informal efforts to influence Executive not protected when they seek to aid a particular private party | Court: Contacts were ambiguously legislative but, on facts, predominately lobbying for Melgen (casework), not protected |
| Whether meetings with CMS Acting Admin Tavenner were part of vetting (thus legislative) | Meeting and follow-up call were about Tavenner’s nomination and confirmation vetting | Evidence showed meetings focused on Melgen’s specific dispute, not nomination | Court: Not legislative; record supports that meetings served Melgen’s case, not confirmation vetting |
| Whether Ethics Act disclosures are protected legislative acts under Speech or Debate | Filing obligations derive from Senate Rulemaking; disclosures are internal legislative matters immune from Executive enforcement | Ethics Act is a statute enacted by Congress; disclosures are regulatory/administrative, not integral legislative acts | Court: Ethics Act filings are not legislative acts protected by the Clause; Executive prosecution permissible |
| Venue for Count 22 (New Jersey vs. D.C.) / mandamus relief | Venue proper only in D.C. because filings occurred there | Indictment alleges acts in New Jersey (concealment) before filing in D.C.; district court properly denied dismissal | Court: Menendez waived plenary challenge; even if considered, mandamus denied — no clear abuse of discretion or irreparable harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) (Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts and bars use of legislative act evidence in prosecutions)
- United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972) (legislative immunity is limited to acts integral to legislative process; Members are not "super-citizens")
- United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477 (1979) (privilege against use of evidence of legislative acts in prosecutions)
- Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979) (Speech or Debate Clause must be construed broadly but not to shield non-legislative conduct)
- Gov’t of the Virgin Islands v. Lee, 775 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1985) (burden on Member to prove applicability of legislative immunity; extrinsic evidence may be considered)
- United States v. McDade, 28 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1994) (distinguishes protected oversight from lobbying for a particular party)
- United States v. Hansen, 772 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (upholding conviction under § 1001 for concealing facts in Ethics Act filing)