In re: Don McGahn

Last updated

D.C. District Court ruling ordering Don McGahn to follow a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee U.S. House Judiciary Committee v. Donald F. McGahn D.C. District Court Memorandum Opinion.pdf
D.C. District Court ruling ordering Don McGahn to follow a congressional subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee

In re: Don McGahn (also: Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II; U.S. House Judiciary Committee v. Donald F. McGahn) is a U.S. constitutional case lawsuit (1:19-cv-02379) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the House Judiciary Committee to compel the testimony of former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn Jr. under subpoena. [1] McGahn was put under subpoena to testify regarding his knowledge of the Russia investigation and Mueller Report and whether President Donald Trump's actions could constitute obstruction of justice. The case gained importance as the House launched impeachment proceedings against Trump regarding the Trump–Ukraine scandal.

Contents

In April 2019, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn to testify before Congress about potential obstruction of justice on the part of the Trump administration. The administration directed McGahn to ignore the subpoena, claiming that he was "absolutely immune" from compelled congressional testimony. [2] In August 2019, the Judiciary Committee sued McGahn to compel his testimony. [2] On November 25, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, declaring that "no one is above the law," but allowed McGahn to invoke executive privilege on certain questions. [3] [4] Jackson's ruling said that the claim of the Justice Department (DOJ) to "unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity" is "baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained". [5] The ruling is laced with references to and quotes from the Founding Fathers of the United States and the Constitution's Framers.

The case was appealed by the DOJ, representing Don McGahn, [6] and on November 26, 2019, the DOJ asked Jackson to put a temporary stay on her order so they could appeal it. [7] The Justice Department requested a second stay pending an appeal of the ruling, but Judge Jackson rejected that request on December 2, 2019, calling the DOJ's assertion that the Judiciary Committee would not be harmed by a stay "disingenuous". [8] In August 2020, the full US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 7-2 that the House of Representatives could sue to subpoena McGahn. [9] [10] However, on August 31, 2020, the appeals court ruled 2–1 that Congress had never passed a law empowering the House of Representatives to sue to enforce a subpoena, and that, until such a law exists, the House cannot sue for this purpose and therefore has no mechanism to force McGahn's compliance. [11] [12]

In December 2020, the House Judiciary Committee told the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that it would reissue its subpoena to McGahn in the next Congress. [13] In May 2021, the Committee and the Biden administration reached an undisclosed agreement, which involved the avoidance of arguments in the court which were to take place that month.

Ruling

On November 25, 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, declaring that "presidents are not kings" and "no one is above the law." [3] Jackson's 118-page ruling allowed McGahn to invoke executive privilege on certain questions, but not defy the subpoena. [3]

Excerpts

Excerpts from the ruling include: [14]

When DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding to compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ promotes a conception of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands exactly backwards. In reality, it is a core tenet of this Nation's founding that the powers of a monarch must be split between the branches of the government to prevent tyranny. [6]

and

Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison); The Federalist No. 69 (Alexander Hamilton); 1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 115–18 (Harvey C. Mansfield & Delba Winthrop eds. & trans., Univ. of Chicago Press 2000) (1835). This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life. To be sure, there may well be circumstances in which certain aides of the President possess confidential, classified, or privileged information that cannot be divulged in the national interest and that such aides may be bound by statute or executive order to protect. But, in this Court's view, the withholding of such information from the public square in the national interest and at the behest of the President is a duty that the aide herself possesses. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, in the context of compelled congressional testimony, such withholding is properly and lawfully executed on a question-by-question basis through the invocation of a privilege, where appropriate. [lower-alpha 1] As such, with the exception of the recognized restrictions on the ability of current and former public officials to disclose certain protected information, such officials (including senior-level presidential aides) still enjoy the full measure of freedom that the Constitution affords. Thus, DOJ's present assertion that the absolute testimonial immunity that senior-level presidential aides possess is, ultimately, owned by the President, and can be invoked by the President to overcome the aides' own will to testify, is a proposition that cannot be squared with core constitutional values, and for this reason alone, it cannot be sustained. [14] : 114–115 

To make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. Indeed, absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of sheer repetition in OLC opinions, and through accommodations that have permitted its proponents to avoid having the proposition tested in the crucible of litigation. And because the contention that a President’s top advisors cannot be subjected to compulsory congressional process simply has no basis in the law, it does not matter whether such immunity would theoretically be available to only a handful of presidential aides due to the sensitivity of their positions, or to the entire Executive branch. Nor does it make any difference whether the aides in question are privy to national security matters, or work solely on domestic issues. And, of course, if present frequent occupants of the West Wing or Situation Room must find time to appear for testimony as a matter of law when Congress issues a subpoena, then any such immunity most certainly stops short of covering individuals who only purport to be cloaked with this authority because, at some point in the past, they once were in the President's employ. This was the state of law when Judge Bates first considered the issue of whether former White House Counsel Harriet Miers had absolute testimonial immunity in 2008, and it remains the state of law today, and it goes without saying that the law applies to former White House Counsel Don McGahn, just as it does to other current and former senior-level White House officials. Thus, for the myriad reasons laid out above as well as those that are articulated plainly in the prior precedents of the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, this Court holds that individuals who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena—i.e., they cannot ignore or defy congressional compulsory process, by order of the President or otherwise. Notably, however, in the context of that appearance, such individuals are free to assert any legally applicable privilege in response to the questions asked of them, where appropriate. [14] : 115–116 

Conclusion

Jackson's ruling concludes with a statement regarding the rule of law and checks and balances under the United States Constitution. The first paragraph of the conclusion is:

The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men. The Constitution and federal law set the boundaries of what is acceptable conduct, and for this reason, as explained above, when there is a dispute between the Legislature and the Executive branch over what the law requires about the circumstances under which government officials must act, the Judiciary has the authority, and the responsibility, to decide the issue. Moreover, as relevant here, when the issue in dispute is whether a government official has the duty to respond to a subpoena that a duly authorized committee of the House of Representatives has issued pursuant to its Article I authority, the official’s defiance unquestionably inflicts a cognizable injury on Congress, and thereby, substantially harms the national interest as well. These injuries give rise to a right of a congressional committee to seek to vindicate its constitutionally conferred investigative power in the context of a civil action filed in court. [14] : 116–117 

Appeal

The case was appealed by the Department of Justice, representing Don McGahn. [6] Reacting on Twitter, McGahn attorney William Burck said McGahn will comply unless the order is stayed pending appeal, [4] and on November 26, the Department of Justice asked Jackson to put a temporary stay on her order so they can appeal it. [7] The Justice Department requested a second stay pending an appeal of the ruling, but on December 2 judge Jackson rejected that request, calling the DOJ's assertion that the House Judiciary Committee would not be harmed by a stay "disingenuous." Jackson wrote, "DOJ's argument here that any further delay will not be harmful to the Judiciary Committee because, in essence, DOJ has already harmed the Committee's interests by successfully delaying its access to other materials strikes this Court as an unacceptable mischaracterization of the injury at issue." [8]

The day after the President was impeached on December 18, the Department of Justice requested that the judgment be summarily reversed because the point was mooted by the House vote. [15] In a reply on December 23, House Counsel Douglas Letter said it was not, [16] as supplemental articles might still be issued.

Amicus briefs

Several organizations submitted amicus curiae briefs to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the case.

Several conservative lawyers such as George Conway and Republican former members of Congress submitted a brief in support of the original ruling. [17] In their brief, they stated that a Constitutional originalist view of the dispute requires the courts to force McGahn to appear, even more so because of the then-ongoing impeachment proceedings. [17] They cited examples from the late 1700s and early 1800s of Congress exercising oversight powers and having access to executive branch officials and their documents to support their brief. [17]

3-judge panel ruling and rehearing en banc

On February 28, 2020, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and ordered the House's lawsuit dismissed. [18] Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith, joined by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, determined that the separation of powers under the United States Constitution does not allow Congress to use the Courts to force Executive officials to testify. [19] Judge Henderson wrote a concurrence in which she argued the House simply did not have standing to sue in this instance. [19] Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote a dissent. [19] On March 13, 2020, the D.C. Court of Appeals granted an appeal for an en banc hearing and vacated the February 28, 2020 decision. [20] The en banc hearing occurred on April 28, 2020. [21] [22] On August 7, 2020, the full nine judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 7–2 that the House of Representatives could sue to subpoena McGahn. [9] [10] However, on August 31, the appeals court ruled 2–1 that Congress had never passed a law empowering the House of Representatives to sue to enforce a subpoena, and that, until such a law exists, the House cannot sue for this purpose and therefore has no mechanism to force McGahn's compliance. [11] [12]

Settlement and end of controversy

In December 2020, the House Judiciary Committee told the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that it would reissue its subpoena to McGahn in the next Congress. However, Trump's term ended, and the Biden administration and the committee made an agreement to end the controversy. [13]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ There is a footnote in the source stating: "With respect to such withholding, the President can certainly identify sensitive information that he deems subject to executive privilege, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 713, and his doing so gives rise to a legal duty on the part of the aide to invoke the privilege on the President's behalf when, in the course of his testimony, he is asked a question that would require disclosure of that information. But the invocation of the privilege by a testifying aide is an order of magnitude different than DOJ's current claim that the President essentially owns the entirety of a senior-level aide's testimony such that the White House can order the individual not to appear before Congress at all." [14] : 115 

Related Research Articles

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing the information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its area of constitutional activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judith W. Rogers</span> American judge (born 1939)

Judith Ann Wilson Rogers is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas B. Griffith</span> American judge (born 1954)

Thomas Beall Griffith is an American lawyer and jurist who served as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2005 to 2020. Currently, he is a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School, a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University (BYU), and special counsel in the Washington, D.C. office of the law firm of Hunton Andrews Kurth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karen L. Henderson</span> American judge (born 1944)

Karen LeCraft Henderson is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a former United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Don McGahn</span> American government official (born 1968)

Donald Francis McGahn II is an American lawyer who served as White House Counsel for U.S. President Donald Trump, from the day of Trump's inauguration through October 17, 2018, when McGahn resigned. Previously, McGahn served on the Federal Election Commission for over five years. In November 2019, McGahn received a court order to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives. In August 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 7–2 that the House can sue him to comply.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ketanji Brown Jackson</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2022 (born 1970)

Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson is an American lawyer and jurist who is an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Jackson was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office that same year. She is the first black woman and the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Efforts to impeach Donald Trump</span> Efforts to impeach the 21st-century US president

Various people and groups assert that former U.S. president Donald Trump engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency, and talk of impeachment began before he took office. Grounds asserted for impeachment have included possible violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting payments from foreign dignitaries; alleged collusion with Russia during the campaign for the 2016 United States presidential election; alleged obstruction of justice with respect to investigation of the collusion claim; and accusations of "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred", which formed the basis of a resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Steven Engel</span> American lawyer (born 1974)

Steven Andrew Engel is an American lawyer. He served as the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Donald Trump administration. Engel, who previously worked in the George W. Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, and confirmed on November 7, 2017. On January 20, 2021, he was succeeded by Christopher H. Schroeder who served under the Biden Administration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trevor N. McFadden</span> American judge (born 1978)

Trevor Neil McFadden is an American lawyer who serves as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Previously, he was a deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pat Cipollone</span> American lawyer (born 1966)

Pasquale Anthony "Pat" Cipollone is an American attorney who served as White House Counsel for President Donald Trump. While in office he defended Trump in his first impeachment trial and objected to his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (January–June 2019)</span>

This is a timeline of events in the first half of 2019 related to investigations into the many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, both before and after July 2016, until November 8, 2016, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and followed by the second half of 2019, 2020, and 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mueller report</span> 2019 U.S. government report on Russian interference in the 2016 election

The Mueller report, officially titled Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election, is the official report documenting the findings and conclusions of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 United States presidential election, allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and allegations of obstruction of justice. The report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019, and a redacted version of the 448-page report was publicly released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 18, 2019. It is divided into two volumes. The redactions from the report and its supporting material were placed under a temporary "protective assertion" of executive privilege by then-President Trump on May 8, 2019, preventing the material from being passed to Congress, despite earlier reassurance by Barr that Trump would not exert privilege.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump</span> 2019 Congressional process regarding U.S. President Trump

The inquiry process which preceded the first impeachment of Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States, was initiated by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on September 24, 2019, after a whistleblower alleged that Donald Trump may have abused the power of the presidency. Trump was accused of withholding military aid as a means of pressuring newly elected president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky to pursue investigations of Joe Biden and his son Hunter and to investigate a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election. More than a week after Trump had put a hold on the previously approved aid, he made these requests in a July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president, which the whistleblower said was intended to help Trump's reelection bid.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a landmark US Supreme Court case involving subpoenas issued by committees of the US House of Representatives to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump, who had litigated against his personal accounting firm to prevent this disclosure, although the committees had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Mazars was consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG.

<i>Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary</i> United States Supreme Court Case

Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary (2020), No. 19-1328, was a court decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case weighs whether a committee of the House of Representatives can assert the House's "sole power of impeachment" to subpoena materials gathered as part of a federal grand jury investigation which are ordinarily secret. Due to changes in the government by the time of the 2020 election, many of the aspects leading to the case have become unnecessary, and the Supreme Court ruled the case moot in orders released in July 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (2020–2022)</span>

This is a timeline of events from 2020 to 2022 related to investigations into the many suspicious links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, both before and after July 2016, until November 8, 2016, election day, the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and the first and second halves of 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2017–2018 Department of Justice metadata seizures</span> Seizure of two American congressmens personal data

The United States Department of Justice under the Trump administration acquired by a February 2018 subpoena the Apple iCloud metadata of two Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, several others associated with the committee, and some of their family members. The subpoena covered 73 phone numbers and 36 email addresses since the inception of the accounts. Seizing communications information of members of Congress is extraordinarily rare. The department also subpoenaed and obtained 2017 and 2018 phone log and email metadata from news reporters for CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Apple also received and complied with February 2018 subpoenas for the iCloud accounts of White House counsel Don McGahn and his wife. Microsoft received a subpoena relating to a personal email account of a congressional staff member in 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2019)</span>

This is a timeline of major events in second half of 2019 related to the investigations into the myriad links between Trump associates and Russian officials and spies that are suspected of being inappropriate, relating to the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It follows the timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections before and after July 2016 up until election day November 8, and the transition, the first and second halves of 2017, the first and second halves of 2018, and the first half of 2019, but precedes that of 2020 and 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election</span> Criminal investigation of Trump 2020

The United States Justice Department investigation into attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election began in early 2021 with investigations and prosecutions of hundreds of individuals who participated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol. By early 2022, the investigation had expanded to examine Donald Trump's inner circle, with the Justice Department impaneling several federal grand juries to investigate the attempts to overturn the election. Later in 2022, a special counsel was appointed. On August 1, 2023, Trump was indicted. The indictment also describes six alleged co-conspirators.

References

  1. ↑ "Committee On The Judiciary Of The U.S. House Of Representatives v. Mcgahn II (1:19-cv-02379), District Of Columbia District Court". pacermonitor.com. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
  2. 1 2 Fandos, Nicholas; Savage, Charlie (August 7, 2019). "Pondering Impeachment, House Sues Don McGahn, Ex-White House Counsel, for Testimony". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331. Archived from the original on August 9, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
  3. 1 2 3 Allyn, Bobby (November 25, 2019). "Federal Judge Rules That McGahn Must Testify, Delivering Blow To White House". NPR. Archived from the original on November 27, 2019. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  4. 1 2 Williams, Pete (November 25, 2019). "Former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey subpoena to testify before Congress, judge rules". NBC News. Retrieved November 25, 2019.
  5. ↑ Hsu, Spencer S. (November 26, 2019). "Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, judge rules". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved December 10, 2019.
  6. 1 2 3 "McGahn appeals ruling ordering him to comply with House impeachment subpoena". Axios. November 26, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
  7. 1 2 Samuelsohn, Darren (November 26, 2019). "DOJ moves to halt judge's ruling that McGahn must testify". Politico. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved November 26, 2019.
  8. 1 2 Samuelsohn, Darren; Gerstein, Josh (December 2, 2019). "Judge denies DOJ request for stay on Don McGahn testimony". Politico. Archived from the original on December 8, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
  9. 1 2 Berman, Dan; Polantz, Katelyn; de Vogue, Ariane (August 7, 2020). "House can subpoena former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify, appeals court rules". CNN. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved August 7, 2020.
  10. 1 2 Gerstein, Josh; Cheney, Kyle (August 7, 2020). "Appeals court rejects key argument against McGahn subpoena". Politico. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved August 7, 2020.
  11. 1 2 Katelyn Polantz (August 31, 2020). "House Democrats can't subpoena former White House counsel, appeals court rules". CNN. Archived from the original on September 1, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  12. 1 2 Polantz, Katelyn (September 2, 2020). "What Trump's big win over the House of Representatives means". CNN. Archived from the original on September 4, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  13. 1 2 "Don McGahn to face House subpoena, again". December 17, 2020. Archived from the original on January 22, 2021. Retrieved February 13, 2021.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 "Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II". uscourts.gov. November 25, 2019. Archived from the original on December 6, 2019. Retrieved December 5, 2019.
  15. ↑ Sneed, Tierney (December 19, 2019). "DOJ Tries To Use House's Impeachment Vote Against It In McGahn Case". Talking Points Memo. Archived from the original on December 20, 2019. Retrieved January 1, 2020.
  16. ↑ Gerstein, Josh; Cheney, Kyle (December 23, 2019). "House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again". Politico . Archived from the original on December 24, 2019. Retrieved January 1, 2020.
  17. 1 2 3 Gerstein, Josh (December 16, 2019). "Trump's subpoena-defying claims legally flawed, ex-GOP lawmakers argue". Politico . Archived from the original on January 4, 2020. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  18. ↑ "House Judiciary Committee v. McGahn" (PDF). cadc.uscourts.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 29, 2020. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  19. 1 2 3 Savage, Charlie (February 29, 2020). "Court Rules Congress Cannot Sue to Force Executive Branch Officials to Testify". The New York Times . p. A1. Archived from the original on February 29, 2020. Retrieved February 29, 2020.
  20. ↑ "Per curiam order". Court Listener. March 13, 2020. Archived from the original on June 8, 2020. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
  21. ↑ Butash, Charlotte; Taylor, Margaret (April 29, 2020). "Oral Arguments in the D.C. Circuit En Banc Consideration of Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn and U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin". Lawfare. Archived from the original on June 8, 2020. Retrieved June 8, 2020.
  22. ↑ Sherman, Mark (April 28, 2020). "Appeals court seems to favor House in McGahn subpoena fight". ABC News. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.