Supreme Court of the United States
Helstoski v. Meanor, United States District Judge
June 18, 1979442 U.S. 500
Summary
The Court, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burger, affirmed the Third Circuit’s denial of a writ of mandamus and held that a Member of Congress may not obtain mandamus relief to challenge an indictment on Speech or Debate Clause grounds because direct appeal to the Court of Appeals is the proper avenue. Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is appropriate to protect the Clause and that the time‑bar on direct appeal should not preclude relief.
Holding
- Whether a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy to challenge the validity of an indictment of a Member of Congress on Speech or Debate Clause grounds. Mandamus is not appropriate; the proper remedy is direct appeal to the Court of Appeals
Docket 78-546
Cited authorities
- 18 U.S.C. § 201
- 18 U.S.C. § 371
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 201
- 18 U.S.C. § 201
Cited by
- Bhujel v. Nielson
- In Re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation Steering Committee v. Mead Corporation, Defendants-Appellants in Re…
- Ex Parte James Richard "rick" Perry, Appellant
- United States of America, Appellee v. William C. Sorren, Defendant, Appellant
- 35 Fair empl.prac.cas. 239, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,508 Manuel Agromayor v. Severo Colberg
- David Libby, Plaintiffs, Appellees v. Clifford Marshall, Defendants, Appellees. Michael Dukakis, Et…
- United States, Appellee v. the Larouche Campaign, Defendants, Appellants
- Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Plaintiff, Appellee v. Puerto RICO Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, Defendant, Appellant