The Hill
Sunday, July 05, 2009
SEARCH
Home
HillTube
Mobile
White Papers Portal
New Member Guide
BLOGS
Pundits Blog
Congress Blog
Blog Briefing Room
Twitter Room Blog
NEWS
Leading The News
Business & Lobbying
K Street Insiders
John Breaux
John Engler
Vin Weber
Dave Wenhold
The Executive
Campaign
Obama Cabinet
COLUMNISTS
Dick Morris
A.B. Stoddard
Brent Budowsky
Ben Goddard
David Hill
David Keene
Josh Marshall
Mark Mellman
Jim Mills
Markos Moulitsas (Kos)
Cheri Jacobus
John Del Cecato
COMMENT
Editorial
Letters
Op-eds
Weyant's World
CAPITAL LIVING
Today's Stories
50 Most Beautiful 2008
Other Features
In The Know
Bookshelf
Announcements
Food & Drink
Onward and Upward
RESOURCES
Classifieds
Subscribe
Order Reprints
Aerospace
Energy Special Report
Telecom Special Report
Transport Special Report
Earth Day Special Report
Consumer Safety Report
Useful Links
RSS


Home arrow Leading The News arrow Supreme Court refuses to hear McDermott’s appeal
Leading The News PDF Print E-mail
Supreme Court refuses to hear McDermott’s appeal
Posted: 12/03/07 02:34 PM [ET]

An 11-year legal battle between Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) over the leaking of a taped cell phone conversation ended Monday when the Supreme Court refused to review the case.

The inaction leaves in place a previous federal appeals court ruling that McDermott acted improperly by giving reporters a recording of a 1996 phone call between House Republican leaders who were discussing the House ethics case against then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

That decision, issued in May, upheld a previous court decision ordering McDermott to pay Boehner $60,000 in damages and more than $800,000 in legal costs to Boehner.

McDermott asked the Supreme Court to hear his appeal, arguing that the previous ruling violated his free speech rights.

McDermott had a mixed reaction to the Supreme Court’s failure to take up his case, expressing disappointment at the final outcome but pride in his decision to fight for free speech rights.

“I knew when I asked the Supreme Court to review this case that the odds were against me, since the court accepts only a small fraction of the cases submitted,” he said in a statement.

“Nonetheless, I thought that the constitutional principles presented — the First Amendment protection of truthful speech and the separation of powers doctrine — warranted the court’s attention,” he added. “I pursued this case based on my belief in the people’s right to know, and I continue to believe it was my sworn responsibility to vigorously defend that right.”

Boehner expressed relief that the dispute ended in his favor.

“As I’ve said many times: When you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you’ve gone too far,” he said in a statement. “Members of Congress have a responsibility not only to obey the laws of our country and the rules of our institution, but also to defend the integrity of those laws and rules when they are violated.”

 
 
 
BLOGS
TheHill.com Blogs Briefing Room Pundits Room Congress Blog Twitter Room
ADVERTISER
Home | Privacy Policy | Terms And Conditions
The Hill
1625 K Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.