The legal team for former Republican Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill.) is petitioning the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision to throw out a…
The legal team for former Republican Rep. Aaron Schock (Ill.) is petitioning the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision to throw out a key part of his indictment.
The filing, submitted on Monday evening, comes before a scheduled hearing on Friday in which the U. S. District Court in the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, will determine how it wants to move forward with the case.
The former Illinois lawmaker stepped down from Congress in 2015 following a firestorm over allegedly spending government funds for personal use. In 2016, the federal government indicted Schock on 24 counts including wire fraud, theft of government funds and making false statements.
Schock’s lawyers at McGuire Woods had attempted to toss the indictment, saying that the government violated the Speech or Debate Clause of the. Constitution, which protects those working on Capitol Hill from being prosecuted for “legislative acts.”
The court wrote, however, that the Speech or Debate Clause „does not help Schock, for a simple reason: the indictment arises out of applications for reimbursements, which are not speeches, debates, or any other part of the legislative process.“
Lawyers for Schock also had said the government violated separation-of-powers principles, with federal law enforcement officials overextending their power to prosecute him.
Other charges against Schock include allegedly submitting inaccurate expense reports while in Congress, pocketing tens of thousands of dollars in reimbursement cash and then subsequently lying on his tax returns by not including it as part of his income.
While in Congress, he allegedly sought to be reimbursed for $15,000 of the $40,000 cost of remodeling his office and often overstated how many miles he drove to gain more money back on expense reimbursements.
The government overstepped, his lawyers argued, because the House regulates the rules governing reimbursement claims. The Justice Department, therefore, doesn’t have the ability to determine whether these violations occurred.
“Judges regularly interpret, apply, and occasionally nullify rules promulgated by the President or another part of the Executive Branch, as well as statutes enacted by the Legislative Branch; why would reimbursement rules be different?” the appeals court wrote in its decision.
Schock’s lawyers have also accused the FBI of sending confidential informants into Schock’s office while he was a sitting congressman, which they say crosses the line between the Judiciary and the Legislative branches.
Following the appeals court ruling in May, Schock’s attorneys had the option of appealing the ruling to back to the 7th Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court.
On Monday, Schock’s legal team told the U. S. District Court in the Central District of Illinois that it would be filing a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court and asked to continue the hold on the trial until the high court decided whether it would take the appeal.
The government is expected to push back on the request, according to the court filing, and lawyers for the defense ask that the trial date be pushed until the Supreme Court makes its decision — as early as this summer or as late as next January.
The Supreme Court previously overturned corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), effectively making trying elected officials for corruption even more difficult going forward.
All eyes will be on which cases the Supreme Court chooses to take up in its next session, as decisions could be shaped by a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has announced his retirement.
