[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6]
[Chapter 5.  The House Rules, Journal, and Record]
[A. House Rules and Manual]
[Â§ 4. Judicial Authority With Respect to Rules]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 305-306]
 
                               CHAPTER 5
 
                  The House Rules, Journal, and Record
 
                       A. HOUSE RULES AND MANUAL
 
Sec. 4. --Judicial Authority With Respect to Rules

    The role that the courts play in adjudicating questions involving 
the rules of either House must of necessity be a limited one, for the 
manner in which a House or committee of Congress chooses to run its 
business ordinarily raises no justifiable controversy.(3) On 
the other hand, when the application or construction of a rule directly 
affects persons other than Members of the House, the question presented 
is of necessity a judicial one.(4) Thus, to a limited 
extent, the rules of Congress and its committees are judicially 
cognizable. Even where a judicial controversy is presented, however, 
the function of the courts is generally a narrow one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); United States v 
        Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
 4. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); Christoffel v United 
        States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Constitution empowers each House to determine its rules of 
proceedings.(5) The House may not by its rules ignore 
constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there 
should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of 
proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be 
attained. But within these limitations, all matters of method are open 
to the determination of the House, and it is no impeachment of the rule 
to say that some other way would be better, more accurate or even more 
just.(6) In accordance with these principles, the question, 
as was stated in one case,(7) is not what rules Congress may 
establish, but rather what rules the House has established and whether 
they have been followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. See Sec. 3, supra.
 6. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); United States v 
        Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
 7. Christoffel v United States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949). In the Christoffel 
        case, the petitioner had been convicted of perjury before a 
        House committee under a statute punishing perjury before a 
        ``competent'' tribunal. The petitioner contended that the 
        committee was not a ``competent'' tribunal in that a quorum was 
        not present at the time of the incident alleged. The court 
        reversed the conviction, citing an erroneous instruction that 
        would have allowed the jury to determine competency on the 
        basis of the situation existing at the time the committee 
        convened rather than at the time of the actual incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although rules adopted by the House or its committees have the

[[Page 306]]

force of law and are binding on those for whose use the rules were 
established,(8) there is a point beyond which courts will 
not venture in their disposition of cases concerning the rules. Thus, 
in a controversy involving a House rule that required testimony to be 
received by a committee in executive session only if the committee 
determined that the testimony of the witness would tend to defame, 
degrade, or incriminate any person, the court stated that it would be 
an unwarranted interference with the powers conferred by the 
Constitution upon the legislative branch for any court to presume to 
dictate that determination.(9) It is worth noting that the 
court in this case also cited a presumption in favor of the regularity 
of all official conduct and stated that the presumption required that 
it be assumed that a committee would not disregard its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 8. Yellin v United States, 374 U.S. 109 (1963); Christoffel v United 
        States, 338 U.S. 84 (1949); Randolph v Willis, 220 F Supp 355 
        (1963).
 9. Randolph v Willis, 220 F Supp 355 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------