Whether a member of the Legislative Branch may immediately appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment on Rulemaking Clause grounds

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Constitution’s Rulemaking Clause grants exclusive jurisdiction to the House of Representatives to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Article I, § 5, cl. 2. The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause provides that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators and Members of the House of Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Article I, § 6, cl.1. Former Congressman Aaron Schock appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment on both Rulemaking and Speech or Debate Clause grounds. The Seventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Rulemaking Clause claim in an acknowledged circuit split, and rejected his Speech or Debate Clause on the merits. The Questions Presented are as follows: IL. May a member of the Legislative Branch immediately appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment on the ground that it violates the separation of powers protected by the Constitution’s Rulemaking Clause? a. Is such a claim immediately appealable by virtue of the collateral order doctrine where it invokes a claim of non-justiciability and separation of powers immunity and as a result cannot be redressed after a trial? b. Is there pendent appellate jurisdiction doctrine to hear such a claim because of its relationship with an immediately appealable Speech or ii Debate Clause claim, or is that doctrine categorically unavailable in criminal cases? Il. Does the Speech or Debate Clause provide a legislator with immunity from criminal charges that are founded in part on the content of internal House of Representatives communications concerning the interpretation, application or administration of Rules of the Proceedings?