House Democrats can sue to force President Trump’s former White House counsel Donald McGahn to comply with a congressional subpoena, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
In a 7-2 decision, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the House has a long-standing right to force government officials to testify and produce documents. The ruling came in one of a set of historic clashes between the White House and Democratic lawmakers.
The “effective functioning of the Legislative Branch critically depends on the legislative prerogative to obtain information, and constitutional structure and historical practice support judicial enforcement of congressional subpoenas when necessary,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote for the majority.
The decision is a legal victory for House Democrats, but the ruling does not mean that McGahn will immediately appear on Capitol Hill. The court sent the case back to the initial three-judge panel, which had ruled against the House, to consider McGahn’s other challenges to the subpoena. The timeline makes it unlikely that the case will be resolved before Congress adjourns in January and the subpoena expires.
The opinion also cleared the way for a second House lawsuit, finding that lawmakers have a right to go to court to challenge the Trump administration to block the diversion of billions of dollars to build the president’s signature southern border wall.
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn does not have to testify to House, appeals court finds
In response to the rulings in the pair of cases, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said, “While we strongly disagree with the standing ruling in McGahn, the en banc court properly recognized that we have additional threshold grounds for dismissal of both cases, and we intend to vigorously press those arguments before the panels hearing those cases.”
Judges Thomas B. Griffith and Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented in both cases, emphasizing that courts should not intervene in political disputes.
“Who benefits from today’s decision? Not Congress. The majority’s ruling will supplant negotiation with litigation, making it harder for Congress to secure the information it needs,” Griffith wrote.
AD
Because the majority failed to decide the merits of the case, the chances that McGahn testifies “anytime soon are vanishingly slim,” he noted.
“The federal courts won’t benefit, either,” Griffith added. “The majority’s decision will compel us to referee an interminable series of interbranch disputes, politicizing the Judiciary by repeatedly forcing us to take sides between the branches.”
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao did not participate in either case. Both were nominated by Trump and previously held high-level positions in his administration.
House Democrats initially subpoenaed McGahn before the start of the chamber’s formal impeachment investigation of the president that ended with Trump’s acquittal in the Senate in February. But House lawyers told the court that McGahn's testimony is still relevant to ongoing oversight and will help the Judiciary Committee determine whether Trump “committed impeachable offenses” in Robert S. Mueller III’s special counsel investigation.
AD
Trump directed McGahn to disregard the subpoena, saying key presidential advisers cannot be forced to answer questions or turn over documents and are “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.”
Democrats ask federal judge to force testimony from ex-White House counsel McGahn
The Justice Department urged the court not to choose sides in a political battle and said lawmakers have other tools to compel the White House to cooperate. A decision in the House’s favor, said government attorney Hashim Mooppan, would open the floodgates, allowing lawmakers to “come in and sue every time the executive branch exceeded its authority.”
The case reached the full appeals court after a divided three-judge panel in February said courts have no power to resolve a “bitter political showdown” over the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for testimony from McGahn.
The full court was reviewing a decision from U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who upheld the subpoena. She rejected the White House’s broad claim that top advisers like McGahn are “absolutely immune” and the assertion that the president can overrule current or former aides’ “own will to testify.”
AD
If McGahn wanted to refuse to testify — by invoking executive privilege, for instance — the judge said he had to do so in person, and question by question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...-top-stories_mcgahn-1120am:homepage/story-ans
In a 7-2 decision, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the House has a long-standing right to force government officials to testify and produce documents. The ruling came in one of a set of historic clashes between the White House and Democratic lawmakers.
The “effective functioning of the Legislative Branch critically depends on the legislative prerogative to obtain information, and constitutional structure and historical practice support judicial enforcement of congressional subpoenas when necessary,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote for the majority.
The decision is a legal victory for House Democrats, but the ruling does not mean that McGahn will immediately appear on Capitol Hill. The court sent the case back to the initial three-judge panel, which had ruled against the House, to consider McGahn’s other challenges to the subpoena. The timeline makes it unlikely that the case will be resolved before Congress adjourns in January and the subpoena expires.
The opinion also cleared the way for a second House lawsuit, finding that lawmakers have a right to go to court to challenge the Trump administration to block the diversion of billions of dollars to build the president’s signature southern border wall.
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn does not have to testify to House, appeals court finds
In response to the rulings in the pair of cases, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said, “While we strongly disagree with the standing ruling in McGahn, the en banc court properly recognized that we have additional threshold grounds for dismissal of both cases, and we intend to vigorously press those arguments before the panels hearing those cases.”
Judges Thomas B. Griffith and Karen LeCraft Henderson dissented in both cases, emphasizing that courts should not intervene in political disputes.
“Who benefits from today’s decision? Not Congress. The majority’s ruling will supplant negotiation with litigation, making it harder for Congress to secure the information it needs,” Griffith wrote.
AD
Because the majority failed to decide the merits of the case, the chances that McGahn testifies “anytime soon are vanishingly slim,” he noted.
“The federal courts won’t benefit, either,” Griffith added. “The majority’s decision will compel us to referee an interminable series of interbranch disputes, politicizing the Judiciary by repeatedly forcing us to take sides between the branches.”
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao did not participate in either case. Both were nominated by Trump and previously held high-level positions in his administration.
House Democrats initially subpoenaed McGahn before the start of the chamber’s formal impeachment investigation of the president that ended with Trump’s acquittal in the Senate in February. But House lawyers told the court that McGahn's testimony is still relevant to ongoing oversight and will help the Judiciary Committee determine whether Trump “committed impeachable offenses” in Robert S. Mueller III’s special counsel investigation.
AD
Trump directed McGahn to disregard the subpoena, saying key presidential advisers cannot be forced to answer questions or turn over documents and are “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.”
Democrats ask federal judge to force testimony from ex-White House counsel McGahn
The Justice Department urged the court not to choose sides in a political battle and said lawmakers have other tools to compel the White House to cooperate. A decision in the House’s favor, said government attorney Hashim Mooppan, would open the floodgates, allowing lawmakers to “come in and sue every time the executive branch exceeded its authority.”
The case reached the full appeals court after a divided three-judge panel in February said courts have no power to resolve a “bitter political showdown” over the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for testimony from McGahn.
The full court was reviewing a decision from U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who upheld the subpoena. She rejected the White House’s broad claim that top advisers like McGahn are “absolutely immune” and the assertion that the president can overrule current or former aides’ “own will to testify.”
AD
If McGahn wanted to refuse to testify — by invoking executive privilege, for instance — the judge said he had to do so in person, and question by question.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...-top-stories_mcgahn-1120am:homepage/story-ans
