A few days ago, I wrote a post about the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution.

My basic point was that members of Congress have certain privileges granted by the Constitution, giving them freedom from legal action relating to their legislative duties. Congress members aren’t above the law, so only legislative acts qualify as being immune from certain kinds of legal attention.

My question, after finding qualifying statements from some committees and from CRS, was the following: do lawmakers or their staff incur legal liabilities by posting information on their websites? Do they give up some immunity by (ostensibly) serving the public, in this case, and not doing something more obviously definable as a legislative act?

My question was answered by several different exchanges that I’ve had in the last few days. First, I was made aware of the Gravel (yes, that Gravel) Supreme Court case. Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, which resulted in legal action leading to the supreme court, which broadly interpreted the immunity of lawmakers. Apparently, legislative acts are immune under the Speech or Debate clause, and these protections apply also to aides or staff that are engaging in acts that the legislator would also engage in.

This case defines the bounds of the immunity granted under this clause of the first amendment as extending to staff as well as members of Congress.

Further detail, I’m told, is available to staff on the Hill, defining in more specific terms what staff can do and still maintain their protection under speech and debate.