DC Court Orders Members of Congress To Produce Documents On Mt. Soledad Law

The judicial decisions in the Mt. Soledad Cross cases never seem to end, as plaintiffs attempt to show that the Establishment Clause was violated by legislation under which the federal government acquired the war memorial. Plaintiffs have been attempting to gather evidence to show that Congress had a religious purpose in enacting legislation transferring control of the site to the federal government. A California federal district court has issued two decisions refusing to permit plaintiffs to take the depositions of members of Congress and their advisers on the issue of motivation. (See prior postings 1, 2.) Now, however, in Jewish War Veterans of the United States v. Gates, (D DC, Sept. 18, 2007), the D.C. federal district court has issued a 55-page opinion and an order permitting plaintiffs to subpoena some documents from three members of Congress.

The court held that "each category of documents requested has the potential to shed light on at least one of the three Lemon prongs. Foremost among these is legislative purpose." Responding to defendants' claim that production of the documents are shielded by the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause, the court said:

The Members are correct that... informal information gathering in connection with or in aid of a legitimate legislative act is itself protected by the Speech or Debate Clause. Such information gathering may take the form of communications with organizations, constituents, or officials of a coordinate branch. The Members are likewise correct that the Clause prohibits inquiry into an individual legislator's motives for engaging in particular legislative acts. At the same time, JWV is correct that accepting the Members' position on these points does not necessarily shield from production all documents responsive to specifications 3, 5, 7 and 9. Documents that reflect a Member's efforts to persuade Executive Branch officials to use existing statutory authority, for example, must be produced, as must documents that reflect legislative purpose, rather than the motives of individual legislators.

The court left it in part to the defendants to decide which documents must be produced under the principles announced in the court's decision. Today's New York Sun reports on the decision.