Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert King rejected Jefferson’s argument that a grand jury was given evidence of Jefferson’s legislative activities in violation of the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, and that this action illegally biased the jury’s decision to indict him. Instead the judge ruled that the government could prosecute the case without using any constitutionally protected legislative material.

“ … The court’s decision to act as it did in assessing Jefferson’s Speech or Debate Clause claim was within its discretion and entirely appropriate,” King wrote in his decision. “With the foregoing principles in mind, we are content to reject Jefferson’s request for further review of the grand jury record, and we affirm the district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment.”

Jefferson faces 16 corruption counts related to charges that he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes to promote business ventures in African countries.

Jefferson’s trial was originally scheduled for Dec. 2 but had been postponed pending this appeal. The court has yet to set a new trial date.

Despite the indictment and looming trial, Jefferson defeated former television personality Helena Moreno in a Democratic runoff Nov. 4. 

He is expected to win reelection in the predominantly Democratic district when voters go to the polls in December.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog that filed an amicus brief in support of the government’s case, hailed the decision.

“While the Constitution protects members of Congress from having evidence of their legislative actions used against them, the Speech or Debate Clause was never intended to allow members of Congress to evade prosecution for criminal acts,” said CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan. “The Constitution also entitles a criminal defendant to a speedy trial and we are looking forward to seeing Rep. Jefferson receive one.”

The ruling could have far-reaching implications for other corruption cases against lawmakers. In October, Rep. Rick Renzi’s (R-Ariz.) legal team argued that all the charges against him should be thrown out in part because the government violated the Speech or Debate clause when making its case against him.

Renzi’s attorneys filed motions arguing that the government recorded phone calls between Renzi and other lawmakers in violation of a wiretap order indicating that it would monitor only certain phone calls.

His attorneys also contended the government asked current and former Renzi staffers to provide documents “without [the] congressman’s knowledge or approval,” according to the motion, and was not given a chance to assert Speech or Debate protections before staffers’ grand jury appearances.

Sloan predicted that the government would file a notice in the Renzi case, citing Jefferson’s rejected appeal on similar grounds. The decision could make it difficult for Renzi’s attorneys to convince a judge to throw out certain charges because the King decision determined that even if the grand jury was exposed to some Speech or Debate material, the government did not need to rely on it to prove its case against Jefferson.

“Even if some Speech or Debate material went before the grand jury, proving their case won’t require them to use it,” Sloan said.

Federal prosecutors allege that Renzi promised to support legislation for a land deal that allegedly netted him more than $700,000. He is facing an array of criminal counts, including conspiracy, money-laundering, extortion and insurance fraud. Renzi did not seek reelection.