Personally, I think the behavior should be reprimanded, but does not deserve a serious hard inquiry; but that's not the question is about. It's about the legality.

Not an expert but @NateEldredge said in this comment that "18 USC 2071 can't apply to proceedings in the House of Representatives because it's a law enforced by the judicial branch which doesn't have jurisdiction over speeches and debates in the House of Representatives. See Section 5 and Section 6 of the Constitution of the United States."

@zakinster I believe that was stated by David Schwartz, which I mentioned in Sidebar. What you quoted is what I was trying to capture in in Sidebard Pt 2. Thanks for offering the details here - I've added them to the reference list.

@zakinster I think you raise an interesting point. The law can be interpreted to address malfeasance, such as to protect against coverups. Is that the sole purpose? Is it to also address nonfeasance and insubordination (destruction of record)? I think it could. Just because it happens televised, in plain sight, does it become any less criminal? — One could argue she broke the law, but was not aware of the law she was breaking; that her intent was focused on making a public political statement. [the perception of which I won’t comment here].

I don't understand what you're referring to when you say "the copy seen on TV, issued by the White House to the House". If you are saying this is the copy that Pelosi was seen to be ripping up, then you need to clarify that while she could do what she wants to her personal copy, she didn't. If you are saying that she ripped her personal copy and not this one, then there's no support for saying "Pelosi has now interfered with that official business.".

@Bobson thanks. The copy she was shown ripping up on TV, was issued by the White House to the House for official purpose; was distinguished as the House copy and not her personal copy. I thought I stated and restated that in a couple ways. I may need to rewrite as I wrote in haste for time, but is it possible that you misread?

@zakinster: Indeed, that wasn't my comment but rather David Schwartz's. There is a possibly interesting question as to whether Pelosi would have immunity from prosecution under the Speech and Debate Clause. Of course, that would not protect her from censure or discipline by the House of Representatives.

I'm not sure who is the "Carson" you refer to - is it Rep. André Carson (D-IN)? I don't know that members of Congress necessarily have specific expertise as parliamentarians. The House has a professional nonpartisan parliamentarian to give advice on matters of parliamentary procedure; the current holder of that office is named Thomas Wickham.

@NateEldredge Yes, I would think to officiate they’d need some understanding of procedural rules (even if it’s Roberts Rules). In the video he was clear he did not want to act as a historian, thus the answers he was giving in reference to procedure made it seem he had proper credentials to be doing so. IMO it seemed like he was answering as a parliamentarian, though that’s just inference and I’m not suggesting that I know him to be one. I would be curious to hear any of Wickham’s input if it is accessible in the public domain.

The fact this is down-voted just shows a bias on this forum. This answer clearly outlines how it could be illegal. Doesn't state it is, but offers a researched potential in which a lawyer might make a case against Pelosi in a theoretical court. To be clear I don't think there's anything illegal in what she did (just foolish). Just hate to see a well researched answer down voted because of closed minds. If someone who down voted wants to correct me and explain why this answer isn't constructive to the conversation I'd love to learn something new today.

Saw the downvote on this and thought that I had stumbled into Politics.SE. Wait, I'm in Law? Scary to see a thought out argument downvoted, no rationale given, over here.

@Hueco I saw the downvote on this just after it was posted - it was a very very different answer at that point and has been extensively expanded since, so the downvote was probably on the basis of the original answer and not the current version you see. Check out the edit history.

@Moo but even the first version makes a valid point and is as well referenced as the current top answer, maybe more so as it actually includes quoted excerpts. Little harder to research more since it didn't link, you'd have to copy and paste the entire first line into google... Still appears to be a case of simple bias.

It’s been edited and I think it’s grown, but not severely different, just refined and added more supporting references that I could find. My friend Mike and I were discussing this and that’s how I stumbled across this forum. He posted an edit that came out of our off-network Slack conversation, but it mostly included some supporting info and a disclaimer. I’m trying avoid the political associations. My personal view is it’s not anything that would be prosecuted and more a question of decorum, but I’d rather steer clear of that argument and solely keep the scope to the legality.

I don’t care too much about votes, I respect the community, but I did try to keep my initial answer inline with the other answers at the time. I didn’t see the alternative (or Devil’s Advocate) perspective and felt I could contribute that. I’m sure a lawyer or someone with a law background better than mine could make a clearer and cleaner point, which I would yield too. I’m a programmer by trade :) But I do appreciate the subsequent conversations, it’s offered some leads on further reading, which I’ve found interesting.

@Hueco "Saw the downvote on this and thought that I had stumbled into Politics.SE. Wait, I'm in Law? Scary to see a thought out argument downvoted, no rationale given, over here" No rationale? Did you see the umpteen comments before yours?

@vol7ron programmer here as well :). I appreciate the counter-argument. Added great dialogue for those who chose to read it; made me question my own thinking about it. +1

I am downvoting because the statement asserting that Carson was parliamentarian is false. The House has a particular officer who serves as the parliamentarian. The parliamentarian provides only advice to the presiding officer and does not have the ability to actually enforce the advice. I would either like a clarification of that point or a citation to the Congressional Record/Journal more accurately explaining where this point comes from.

@Viktor That’s fair and you’re right that I was incorrect in calling him that. He was answering questions on procedures, I made it lower case to denote an informal representation of that role and not titlecase, since that is not his title. How should I recognize him that you feel would be more correct? Speaker? Presiding officer? MC? — I think the official parliamentarian was Wickham, as Nate points out, but to my knowledge he wasn’t really called upon.

@vol7ron I am not in the loop as to when this happened. If you provide a citation to where you read/saw this to be the case I could see what is most appropriate to say. By to be the case I mean where you saw this ruling/statement.

@Viktor Thank you -- the CSPAN transcript/video regarding Rep Hoyer and Rep McCarthy (c-span.org/video/?468929-4/…). I placed it as a reference with text next to it saying, "refer for transcript/video of references to Carson and related decisions." Could that be clearer?

The presiding officer of the House was the Acting Speaker. There is no mention of the parliamentarian issuing a ruling. Your assertion the document is the golden House copy is unsupported by the Congressional record. The ruling of the acting Speaker was “The document is used as part of the House proceedings and can be used for archival and printing purposes.” It was also stated it was a document of the House(H837 of the Congressional Record, Feb. 5, 2020). Asserting a document could be filed or deposited with the Speaker requires finding authorization by the House for the Speaker to do so.

A privilege applies. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."; Art I, § 6: "They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." This would be an act of speech or debate even though it was non-verbal.

@Viktor thanks for the clarification, what you mentioned resonates with me and I'll see if I can update the answer to reflect that.

@ohwilleke I imagine that's what is being argued here. In this case, I assume there could be a felony in question. If you attempt murder, even if non-verbal and in the form of speech, it could be considered a felony. The action was certainly a form of speech; however, I imagine involving that particular copy of the SOTU address could be considered a felony. I'm not making an assertion, just raising possibility due to uncertainty.

@vol7ron The felony limitation applies only to arrests for conduct that took place outside the floor of the House or Senate. The speech and debate clause of Section 6 is broader and provides complete immunity from civil and criminal liability for expressive conduct on the floor of the House and the Senate. There was one aggravated assault on the floor of the Senate in 1856 that resulted in censure resolution, but there were no criminal charges. See senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/…

@ohwilleke thank you for offering that precedent. It's an interesting case to consider. Does the morality and temperament of the time have any effect on the resolution that was reached? I realize even today some states may consider aggravated assault to be a misdemeanor. From the sound of it, that'd be a felony; but then again, that's a time that predates the Civil War, when people still dueled.