# Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A.

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 2007 · 484 F.3d 573

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439590

## Case

- **Full name:** John A. BOEHNER, Appellee v. James A. McDERMOTT, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** May 1, 2007
- **Citations:** 484 F.3d 573; 376 U.S. App. D.C. 75; 2007 WL 1246438
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Griffith
- **Judges:** Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel, Garland, Brown, Griffith
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439590

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that disclosures may be lawfully constrained under the First Amendment, and citing the VPPA

## Opinion text

GRIFFITH, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I agree that Representative McDermott’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment and for that reason join Judge Randolph’s opinion, I write separately to explain that I would have found the disclosure of the tape recording protected by the First Amendment under Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 , 121 S.Ct. 1753 , 149 L.Ed.2d 787 (2001), had it not also been a violation of House Ethics Committee Rule 9, which imposed on Representative McDermott a duty not to “disclose any evidence relating to an investigation to any person or organization outside the Committee unless authorized by the Committee.” Although the Court does not and need not reach the Bartnicki issue to resolve the matter before us, two previous panels in this case have held that the congressman’s actions were not protected by the First Amendment. I believe it is worth noting that a majority of the members of the Court — those who join Part I of Judge Sentelle’s dissent — would have found his actions protected by the First Amendment. Nonetheless, because Representative McDermott cannot here wield the First Amendment shield that he voluntarily relinquished as a member of the Ethics Committee, I join Judge Randolph’s opinion in concluding that his disclosure of the tape recording was not protected by the First Amendment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439590. Public record. Not legal advice.