necessary to implement those powers. Art. I, section 8. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421 (1819), Chief Justice Marshall explained the meaning of this key constitutional provision: [T]he sound construction of the constitution must allow As Judge Butzner noted, Chief Justice Marshall's reasoning applies to these proceedings. (A.168). To decide whether articles of impeachment should be preferred is within the scope of the constitutional authority conferred on the House. Examination of information that caused the grand jury to indict Judge Hastings is, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, a means which is "plainly adapted to that end." Kilbourn v. Thompson, 203 U.S. (13 Otto) 168, 190 (1880), supports the conclusion that the power to impeach includes the power to obtain evidence: The House of Representatives has the sole right to impeach officers of the government, and the Senate to try them. Where the question of such impeachment is before either body acting in its appropriate sphere on that subject, we see no reason to doubt the right to compel the attendance of witnesses, and their answer to proper questions, in the same manner and by the use of the same means that courts of justice can in like cases. Impeachment: Selected Materials on Procedure 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice, paragraph 6.05(4) OTHER AUTHORITY The Federalist No. 65 at 423. (Modern Library ed.) 13 p. 87, paragraph 2061 (93d Congress, 2d Session 1974)... 15, 27 p. 6-122 (2nd ed. 1987). . . 13 8 Moore's Federal Practice, paragraph 6.05[2] p. 6-105 (2d. ed. 1987). . 24 Legal Aspects of Impeachment: An Overview, 46 (1974) (Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel) . . 13 Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Impeachment Trial of Harry E. Claiborne, (99th Congress, 2d Session) pp. 191-192.. 12 Proceedings of the United States Senate in the Trial of Impeachment of Halsted L. Ritter, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida (74th Congress, 2d Sess) p. 15 15 I. II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES WHETHER THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES WHETHER THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES III. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF AN INHERENT SUPERVISORY POWER OVER THE GRAND JURY, PROPERLY GRANTED ACCESS TO THE RECORD OF THE GRAND JURY TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION MATERIAL OUTWEIGHS THE INTERESTS ALLEGED BY JUDGE HASTINGS. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Course of Proceedings and Disposition in the Court Below United States District Judge Alcee L. Hastings has appealed the August 5, 1987 and September 21, 1987 Orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granting to the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (the Committee) access to the records, minutes, transcripts and exhibits of Grand Jury No. 81-1-GJ (MIA) for use in connection with the Committee's impeachment inquiry concerning Judge Hastings. On July 15, 1987, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Peter W. Rodino, Jr., wrote to the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, requesting access to the grand jury materials for use in the impeachment inquiry. (A.1).1 On August 5, 1987, Chief Judge King issued an Order granting the Committee's request. (A.13). Chief Judge King immediately thereafter provided a copy of the Order to Judge Hastings and his counsel. Judge Hastings then moved, inter alia, to stay the Order. (A.17). On August 11, 1987, Chief Judge King issued an Order of Recusal and Request for Designation. (A.68). On August 27, 1987, the Honorable John D. Butzner, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge, was designated to hear the matter. Both the Committee and Judge Hastings filed extensive briefs. (A.72; 131). The 1References to the record are to the appropriate pages of the Appendix to the Emergency Motion to Extend Stay Pending Disposition of Appeal, filed by Appellant on or about October 5, Department of Justice also appeared and fully supported the Committee's request, while opposing Judge Hastings' request for disclosure to himself and the public. (A.127.) The motion to stay was argued on September 15, 1987. On September 21, 1987, Judge Butzner entered an opinion and Order denying the stay sought by Judge Hastings (except for a 21day interim stay), making copies of the grand jury materials available to the Committee, declining to permit disclosure of the grand jury materials to Judge Hastings and to the public generally, and unsealing the court file. (A.162). On October 1, 1987, Judge Hastings filed an appeal to this Court. On October 3, 1987, Judge Hastings filed in this Court an Emergency Motion to Extend Stay Pending Disposition of Appeal ("Emergency Motion"). On October 9, 1987, the Committee filed its Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Stay. This Court has extended the stay until October 30, 1987, and scheduled oral argument on the Motion for October 28, 1987. By Order of October 19, 1987, the parties were advised that the Court would consider the merits of the appeal at the argument. B. Statement of the Facts On December 29, 1981, Grand Jury No. 81-1-GJ (MIA), sitting in the Southern District of Florida, returned indictments against Alcee L. Hastings and William A. Borders, Jr., charging them with conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Mr. Borders was convicted following a jury trial on March 29, 1982. Judge Hastings was |