Court Rules Against McDermott On Disclosure of Illegal Recording
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
WASHINGTON — Rep. Jim McDermott had no right to disclose the contents of an illegally taped telephone call involving House Republican leaders a decade ago, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.
In a 5–4 opinion, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that Mr. McDermott, a Washington Democrat, should not have given reporters access to the taped telephone call.
Mr. McDermott’s offense was especially egregious since he was a senior member of the House ethics committee, the court said.
When he became a member of the ethics panel, Mr. McDermott “voluntarily accepted a duty of confidentiality that covered his receipt and handling of the … illegal recording. He therefore had no First Amendment right to disclose the tape to the media,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote on behalf of the court. Four judges agreed with him.
The ruling upholds a previous decision ordering Mr. McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican of Ohio, more than $700,000 for leaking the taped conversation. The figure includes $60,000 in damages and more than $600,000 in legal costs.
Boehner was among several GOP leaders heard on the December 1996 call, which involved ethics allegations against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican of Georgia. Mr. Gingrich, who was heard on the call telling Boehner and others how to react to allegations, was later fined $300,000 and reprimanded by the House.
Mr. McDermott leaked the tape to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the New York Times, which published stories on the case in January 1997.
In a sharp dissent, Judge David Sentelle said that under the majority’s ruling, “no one in the United States could communicate on this topic of public interest because of the defect in the chain of title,” that is, the fact that the tape was illegally obtained.
“We do not believe the First Amendment permits this interdiction of public information,” Judge Sentelle wrote on behalf of himself and three other judges.
Mr. Boehner called the court’s ruling encouraging, and noted that the court agreed with a bipartisan report of the House ethics committee in December.
“As I’ve said many times: when you break the law in pursuit of a political opponent, you’ve gone too far,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement.
