Rangel v. Boehner

• Citation: 20 F.Supp.3d 148
• Decision Date: 11 December 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–540 JDB
• Parties: Charles B. Rangel, Plaintiff, v. John A. Boehner, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

20 F.Supp.3d 148

Charles B. Rangel, Plaintiff

v.John A. Boehner, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 13–540 JDB

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

December 11, 2013

Jay Goldberg, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Kerry William Kircher, Christine Marie Davenport, Eleni Maria Roumel, Mary Beth Walker, Todd Barry Tatelman, William Bullock Pittard, IV, U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the General Counsel, Richard Alan Sauber, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, John Martin Faust, Law Offices of John M. Faust, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JOHN D. BATES, United States District Judge

Before the Court is [14] defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff Charles Rangel's complaint, which seeks injunctive and declaratory relief related to his censure by the United States House of Representatives. Defendants have responded with a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on five grounds: standing, the political question doctrine, immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, failure to state a claim, and discretionary dismissal under the Declaratory Judgment Act or under the doctrine of equitable discretion. The Court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss on the first three of those grounds.

BACKGROUND

This case results from the United States House of Representatives' censure of Representative Charles Rangel (“Rangel”). Rangel is the U.S. Representative for New York's 13th congressional district. Currently the third-longest-serving member of the House, Rangel has been serving for over forty years: he was first elected in 1970 and has been re-elected in every congressional election since. From 2007 to 2010, Rangel, a Democrat, was the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (“Ways and Means”). Rep. on the Legis. & Oversight Activities of the Comm. on Ways & Means During the 112th Cong. at 131 (Comm. Print May 31, 2012) (“Ways and Means Rep.”).¹

In 2008, Rangel began facing an increasing swell of allegations that he had engaged in impropriety. Those allegations involved certain failures to report income on federal tax returns and on House financial disclosure forms; failures to pay tax on rental income from a Caribbean villa; the use of rent-stabilized apartments in Manhattan for his campaigns in contravention of state and city regulations; and the improper solicitation of donations for an academic center that will house his papers and bear his name. Rep. of the Comm. on Standards of Official Conduct, In the Matter of Rep. Charles B. Rangel, H. Rep. No. 111–661, vol. I, at 147, 267 (Nov. 29, 2010) (“Ethics Comm. Rep.”).² Answering the growing clamor, Rangel requested that the House Ethics Committee investigate the allegations, which it agreed to do. Id. at 258, 266, 644. The Ethics Committee established an investigative subcommittee and reauthorized it when the 111th Congress began. Id. at 258, 428–29; Statement of the Chair and Ranking Republican Mem. of the [Ethics] Comm. (Feb. 10, 2009).³

After conducting an extensive investigation, which included witness interviews, document review, and subcommittee meetings, the investigative committee adopted and transmitted to the full Ethics Committee a thirteen-count Statement of Alleged Violation, detailing the misconduct allegations. Ethics Comm. Rep., vol. I, at 284, 287, 428. In response, the Ethics Committee convened an adjudicatory subcommittee, which held an adjudicatory hearing in November 2010. Id. at 260, 364. Concluding that eleven of the thirteen counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation were established by “clear and convincing evidence,” the adjudicatory subcommittee then sent its report to the full Ethics Committee, which in turn held a hearing to consider what sanction to recommend that the House impose. Id. at 2, 6–14, 396–405, 429–99, 618–89. Following that hearing, the Ethics Committee presented its proposed sanction—censure—to the full House. Id. at 2, 680–81. After debate, the House voted to adopt the Ethics Committee's recommendation: Rangel then stood in the well of the House while then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi read the text of the censure resolution. 156 Cong. Rec. H7891–99 (daily ed. Dec. 2, 2010). In the normal course of the House's day-to-day proceedings, the Clerk of the House prepared a report of the day's events—including a description of the censure proceedings—for inclusion in the House Journal. J. of the H.R. ¶¶ 116.25–.27 (Dec. 2, 2010). The Speaker pro tempore approved the Journal, and thus Rangel's censure became part of the House Journal. Like much of Congress's business, portions of the proceedings were broadcast on C–SPAN. See, e.g., Debate on and Censure of Rep. Charles Rangel (Dec. 2, 2010).⁴

Had that been the end of the matter, this case might not have been filed. But several months later, a memorandum purportedly written by the chief counsel of the Ethics Committee, who is a defendant here, was posted on Politico.com, a political journalism website. See John Bresnahan, Did ethics staff taint Maxine Waters Probe?, Politico (July 18, 2011)⁵ ; Compl. Ex. A (“Chisam Memorandum”). In Rangel's view, that memorandum contains explosive allegations that, if true, significantly undermine the integrity of his censure proceedings. The memorandum addressed, in relevant part, purported ex parte communications between staffers and certain members of the adjudicatory committee during his disciplinary proceedings. Chisam Memorandum at 5–7. Rangel also believes that had the chief counsel notified him of the alleged improprieties before his sanctions hearing concluded, he would have moved to dismiss the proceedings—and, in his view, the House would have done so, precluding the censure altogether. Hence, after the memorandum came to light, he moved the Ethics Committee to “withdraw its actions” in his disciplinary proceedings, which the committee declined to do. Compl. Ex. I. Rather than seek redress from the full House, Rangel filed this action against: (1) the current Speaker of the House, Representative John Boehner; (2) the current Clerk of the House, Karen Haas; (3) the Chairwoman of the Ethics Committee during the 111th Congress, Representative Zoe Lofgren; (4) the Ranking Member of the Ethics Committee during the 111th Congress, Representative Jo Bonner; (5) four more members of the adjudicatory subcommittee, Representatives Michael T. McCaul, K. Michael Conaway, Charles W. Dent, and Gregg Harper; and (6) three staffers who worked for the Ethics Committee during the 111th Congress, R. Blake Chisam, C. Morgan Kim, and Stacey Sovereign. Compl. ¶¶ 9–26. Rangel has not sued the institution that censured him, the House of Representatives itself.

Some other background information is relevant to defendants' motion to dismiss. During the investigative phase of the proceedings, Rangel voluntarily stepped down as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, while retaining his membership on the committee. Letter from the Hon. Charles B. Rangel to the Hon. Nancy Pelosi (Mar. 3, 2010) (“Rangel Letter”).⁶ In 2010, the House flipped from majority Democrat to majority Republican, which resulted in lost seats on Ways and Means for House Democrats—including the Chair. Even so, after being re-elected in 2010, and again in 2012, Rangel was reassigned to the Ways and Means Committee. See Ways and Means Rep. at II. Rather than being members of any of the subcommittees, the Chair and Ranking Member of that committee were deemed “ex-officio Members” of all subcommittees. See Rules of the Comm. on Ways & Means, Rule 9 (112th Cong.) (“Ways and Means Rules”).⁷ Rangel alone was also deemed an ex-officio member of all Ways and Means subcommittees in the 112th Congress. See Ways and Means Rep. at X n.1. Although his status as only an ex-officio member would have precluded his voting on any subcommittee matter, in the 112th Congress every vote was taken at the full committee level. See generally id. at 11–93.

Rangel faced primary challengers in the 2012 election. Unsurprisingly, one opponent attempted to make hay out of the censure by wrongly asserting that Rangel no longer had “the ability to vote on his own committee anymore.” Compl. Ex. K. The primary challenges were ultimately unsuccessful; Rangel defeated all of his opponents despite that particular bit of mudslinging.

Based on what he views as procedural irregularities in the course of his disciplinary proceeding in the House, Rangel seeks the following relief: a declaratory judgment to some unclear effect that, as best the Court can discern, the House must abide by its own rules before censuring one of its own;⁸ an injunction requiring defendants to “take all necessary steps to vacate, strike and remove the recording of censure, as voted on by the House and as set forth in the Journal”;⁹ and an “Order or Writ in the nature of mandamus” that requires the Speaker and the Clerk of the House “to cause to be removed from The Journal of the House's Proceedings, any reference to the fact that Plaintiff had been censured.” Compl. ¶ 108.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Defendants assert five grounds for dismissal, arguing that: (1) Rangel lacks standing to bring his claims; (2) Rangel's claims present nonjusticiable political questions; (3) defendants are absolutely immune from suit under the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6, cl. 1 ; (4) Rangel fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (5) even if the Court had jurisdiction and Rangel has stated a claim, the Court should exercise its discretion not to reach the merits of his suit. See Defs.' Mot. to Dism. [ECF No. 14] (“Def.'s Mot.”) 4. The first two grounds challenge this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore will be evaluated under Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(1) ; the last three grounds will be evaluated under Rule 12(b)(6). See Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C.Cir.1987) (stating that “the defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction”); ...