In a potential setback for the government, a federal judge on Friday blocked the introduction of some evidence that prosecutors wanted to use to support their case that Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey accepted bribes in exchange for approval of billions of dollars in aid to Egypt.
The judge’s order, which comes two weeks after Mr. Menendez’s corruption trial in Manhattan, could jeopardize prosecutors’ ability to prove some elements of the multifaceted corruption charges against the senator.
The decision hinges on protections afforded to members of Congress under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which prohibits the government from citing specific legislative actions in an attempt to prove that a federal lawmaker committed a crime.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York said it intends to avoid discussion of official legislative acts and instead focus on promises that it says preceded votes and actions of Mr. Menendez’s Congress.
U.S. District Court Judge Sidney H. Stein ruled in March that while Mr. Menendez’s execution of a legislative act constituted protected conduct, “his promise to do the same was not.” .
The judge’s one-page ruling Friday concerned exhibits offered by prosecutors. One involved a message from an Egyptian official to Wael Hana, one of the senator’s co-defendants, asking whether it was true that Mr. Menendez was withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid. to Egypt.
The other was a link to an article reporting two pending foreign military sales to Egypt totaling about $2.5 billion, which Mr. Menendez’s wife, Nadine Menendez, forwarded to Mr. Hana, writing: “Bob must have approved this. »
Judge Stein ruled that references to prior withholdings and approvals would be excluded as evidence against Mr. Menendez.
The senator’s lawyers, Adam Fee and Avi Weitzman, said in a statement that they were “pleased to see the court rein in prosecutors’ attempts to circumvent the Constitution’s protections for the people’s elected representatives.”
Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for the Southern District, declined to comment.
Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown University who studies legislative procedure and the separation of powers, said the “speech or debate” clause “serves the really important purpose of giving members of Congress leeway to conduct their business in a manner that is not subject to interference by the executive branch and the courts.
At a hearing Tuesday, a prosecutor, Paul M. Monteleoni, acknowledged the challenges posed by the constitutional provision. “The principle that this is intended to make the government’s life more difficult, to some extent, applies,” he said.
“But it is also not designed to immunize members of Congress from criminal liability,” he added.
Since the charges against Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, were announced last year, he and his lawyers have argued that prosecutors were seeking to criminalize routine legislative activity.
Mr. Menendez, his wife, Mr. Hana and another New Jersey businessman were all charged with conspiring to pay bribes to the couple in exchange for the senator’s efforts to meddle in criminal matters of New Jersey, direct aid and weapons to Egypt and to help support Mr. Hana’s halal meat monopoly. They all pleaded not guilty.
Investigators seized more than $480,000 in cash, 13 gold bars and a Mercedes-Benz convertible during a June 2022 search of the couple’s home in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Joseph A. Hayden Jr., a New Jersey criminal lawyer, called the ruling a “significant legal victory” that could help “shake” the government’s case.
