In re Grand Jury Subpoena (2019)

Last updated
In re Grand Jury Subpoena
Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Full case nameIn re Grand Jury Subpoena
ArguedDecember 14, 2018
DecidedJanuary 18, 2019
Citation(s)912 F.3d 623, No. 18-3071
Case history
Prior historySealed v. Sealed, No. 1:18-gj-00041 (D. D.C. 2018); In re Grand Jury Subpoena filed, No. 18-3068 (D.C. Cir. 2018); case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (D.C. Cir. 2018); second appeal for In re Grand Jury Subpoena filed, No. 18-3071 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [1]
Subsequent historyCert. denied, No. 18-948, 139 S. Ct. 1378 (S. Ct. 2019)
Holding
The corporation owned by 'Country A' is not entitled to immunity in civil actions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and must pay the contempt fine that was issued for defiance of a grand jury's subpoena.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingCircuit Judges David S. Tatel, Thomas B. Griffith, Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceWilliams (except Part III.B.; judgment)
Laws applied

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, No. 18-3071, 912 F.3d 623 (2019), was a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case involving an appeal by company owned by a foreign government that was ordered by a federal judge to pay a $50,000 fine per day until it complies with a grand jury's subpoena. The subpoena was conducted by the grand jury empaneled by Robert Mueller in the Special Counsel investigation. [2]

Contents

It was held that the unidentified corporation owned by an unidentified country is not entitled to immunity in civil actions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and must pay the contempt fine that was issued for defiance of a grand jury's subpoena. The fine started accruing on January 15, 2019, and by March 25 could have totalled more than $3 million. Such fines accrue until the grand jury is no longer sitting. [3]

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

Contempt fine

Federal prosecutors suggested that the company owned by 'Country A' pay a contempt fine of $10,000 per day for refusing to cooperate with Robert Mueller's grand jury. United States District Court for the District of Columbia Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell imposed a larger contempt fine of $50,000 per day. [4] [5]

D.C. Circuit

Dismissal of first appeal and filing of second appeal

On September 25, 2018, the corporation owned by 'Country A' filed an appeal, Case No. 18-3068, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A second appeal, Case No. 18-3071, was filed on October 10, 2018, and argued on December 14, 2018. [1]

Panel selection and argument date

Circuit Judge Gregory G. Katsas recused himself from the case. [6] A three-judge panel was selected that was made up of judges Stephen F. Williams, Thomas B. Griffith, and David S. Tatel. The case was argued under seal on December 14, 2018.

Opinion of the D.C. Circuit

On January 18, 2019, the D.C. Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the corporation owned by 'Country A' is not entitled to immunity in civil actions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and must pay the contempt fine of $50,000 per day that was issued by a federal judge for defying Robert Mueller's grand jury subpoena until compliance is met. [7] [3]

Concurrence

With the exception of Part III.B., Senior Circuit Judge Stephen F. Williams concurred with all parts of the majority opinion. Williams also concurred in the judgment in his opinion. Williams stated: "I believe clause 1 of 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) most compellingly establishes grounds for the government's contention that the Corporation is not immune to the subpoena." [8]

Identity of corporation and 'Country A'

The identity of the corporation and country have been subject to speculation. Russian-owned companies, like banks VTB Bank [9] and VEB.RF, as well as oil company Rosneft have been mentioned as possibly being the company held in contempt. The corporation in question is said to be "wholly-owned by a foreign state", [4] making it unlikely that VEB.RF is the company in question (VEB.RF is not a government-owned corporation). Saudi, Emirati, and Qatari-owned companies have also been discussed as possibly being the company owned by 'Country A'. [6]

VTB Bank has widely been speculated as the mystery company owned by 'Country A' because of allegations of involvement in a Trump Tower Moscow project. An email from Felix Sater to Michael Cohen imply that Sater and Cohen were inclined to use VTB Bank as a source for funding Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The email also suggests the Trump Tower Moscow project was connected to the presidential campaign. [9]

In October 2020 CNN reported that 'Country A' was Egypt. [10]

Supreme Court

On February 21, 2019, Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco urged the Supreme Court of the United States to deny the corporation's petition to hear the case. [11] [12]

On March 25, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. [3]

See also

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 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 own area of Constitutional activity.

Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. The case was argued February 23, 1972, and decided June 29 of the same year. The reporters lost their case by a vote of 5–4. This case is cited for the rule that in federal courts, a reporter may not generally avoid testifying in a criminal grand jury, and is one of a limited number of cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the use of reporters' privilege.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David B. Sentelle</span> American judge

David Bryan Sentelle is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The National Legal and Policy Center(NLPC) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit group that monitors and reports on the ethics of public officials, supporters of liberal causes, and labor unions in the United States. The Center files complaints with government agencies, legally challenges what they view as abuse and corruption, and publishes reports. The NLPC is described as conservative in nature. The NLPC's current chairman is Peter Flaherty.

Anthony John Trenga is a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia as well as a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mueller special counsel investigation</span> US investigation into Russian interference in US elections

The Mueller special counsel investigation was an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump and his associates. The investigation was conducted by special prosecutor Robert Mueller from May 2017 to March 2019. It was also called the Russia investigation, the Mueller probe, and the Mueller investigation. The Mueller investigation culminated with the Mueller report, which concluded that though the Trump campaign welcomed Russian interference and expected to benefit from it, there was insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy to charge Trump. The report did not reach a conclusion about possible obstruction of justice of Trump, citing a Justice Department guideline that prohibits the federal indictment of a sitting president. The investigation resulted in charges against 34 individuals and 3 companies, 8 guilty pleas, and a conviction at trial.

<i>D.C. and Maryland v. Trump</i> Lawsuit by Maryland and District of Columbia against Donald Trump concerning emoluments

D.C. and Maryland v. Trump was a lawsuit filed on June 12, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs, the U.S. state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, had violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution by accepting gifts from foreign governments. The lawsuit was filed by D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.

<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 links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials 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, 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">Tax returns of Donald Trump</span> Tax returns of Donald Trump

Donald Trump, President of the United States from January 2017 to January 2021, has controversially refused to release his tax returns since the 2015–2016 campaign for the presidency at the 2016 election. Though Trump promised to release the returns during his campaign, he repeatedly refused to release his tax return information throughout his presidency, the first major-party U.S. presidential candidate or president since 1976 to do so. Trump had repeatedly and falsely claimed that he could not release the returns while they were under audit by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It is IRS policy, but not law, to annually audit tax returns of presidents and vice presidents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of investigations into Donald Trump and Russia (July–December 2018)</span>

This is a timeline of major events in second half of 2018 related to the investigations into links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials 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, and the first half of 2018, but precedes that of the first and second halves of 2019, 2020, and 2021. These events are related to, but distinct from, Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections.

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 has 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 links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials 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, 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.

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark US Supreme Court case arising from a subpoena issued in August 2019 by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. against Mazars, then-President Donald Trump's accounting firm, for Trump's tax records and related documents, as part of his ongoing investigation into the Stormy Daniels scandal. Trump commenced legal proceedings to prevent their release.

<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 links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials 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">New York investigations of The Trump Organization</span> American criminal and civil investigation

Two related investigations by New York State and City officials were opened by 2020 to determine whether the Trump Organization has committed financial fraud. One of these is a criminal case being conducted by the Manhattan district attorney (DA) and the other is a civil case being conducted by the New York State Attorney General (AG). The DA's case led to two of the organization's subsidiary companies being found guilty of 17 charges including tax fraud, while the AG has succeeded in imposing an independent monitor to prevent future fraud by the organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FBI investigation into Donald Trump's handling of government documents</span> Federal investigation into Donald Trump

In 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started the ongoing criminal investigation into former President Donald Trump's handling of classified and national defense-related government documents, looking for possible violations of the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice. The investigation is under the direction of Jack Smith, a special counsel appointed by United States Attorney General Merrick Garland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smith special counsel investigation</span> Investigation into former U.S. president Donald Trump

The Smith special counsel investigation is an ongoing investigation opened by United States Attorney General Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022, to continue two investigations that had been initiated by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Garland appointed Jack Smith, a longtime federal prosecutor, to lead the independent investigations. Smith was tasked with investigating former president Donald Trump's role in the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and Trump's mishandling of government records, including classified documents.

References

  1. 1 2 https://www.rcfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DDC-Motion-to-Unseal-Memo-Datestamped.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  2. Barnes, Robert; Barrett, Devlin; Leonnig, Carol D. (January 8, 2019). "Supreme Court rules against mystery corporation from 'Country A' fighting subpoena in Mueller investigation". Washington Post.
  3. 1 2 3 Hurley, Lawrence (March 25, 2019). "U.S. top court rebuffs mystery company in Mueller subpoena fight" . Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  4. 1 2 "In re Grand Jury Subpoena: Redacted petition for a writ of certiorari" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Attorneys for Petitioner. January 3, 2019. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  5. Gerstein, Josh (January 22, 2019). "Supreme Court keeps cloak over mystery Mueller subpoena fight". Politico. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  6. 1 2 Prokop, Andrew (January 8, 2019). "The mysterious grand jury appeal reportedly tied to the Mueller investigation, explained". Vox. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  7. "Justices Restore Contempt Order Against Corporation Defying Apparent Mueller Subpoena". Yahoo! Finance. January 7, 2019. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  8. "In re: Grand Jury Subpoena" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. January 8, 2019. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  9. 1 2 Kalmbacher, Colin (February 5, 2019). "5 Reasons That New Trump Org Docs May Hint at Identity of Mystery Mueller Opponent". Law and Crime. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  10. "Five takeaways from CNN's story on Mueller's secret investigation" October 15, 2020 CNN Retrieved March 7, 2021
  11. Francisco, Noel J. (February 2019). "In re Grand Jury Subpoena: brief for the United States in opposition" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  12. Stohr, Greg (March 25, 2019). "Mystery Company in Mueller Subpoena Fight Loses at Top Court". Bloomberg. Retrieved October 18, 2020.