To assess the executive privilege argument of the JOR memo, we should begin by drawing three distinctions which are either blurred or ignored in that memo (and the subsequent Wolkinson memo). These are (1) constitutional immunity versus (common law or constitutional) privilege; (2) the protections available to the chief executive versus those available to lower level officials; and (3) subpoenas to appear and provide testimony versus subpoenas to produce documents.
These distinctions are suggested by a passage from a prominent legal treatise that Roberts quotes:
Subpoena to Executive. It is well settled that public officials are not bound to disclose state secrets or to submit public papers to judicial scrutiny. Partly on this ground, and partly because of the immunity of the executive from judicial control on account of the tripartite separation of powers, it seems now to be undisputed that courts cannot compel the attendance of the chief executive as a witness.
JOR memo at 4-5 (quoting 12 Corpus Juris 896 (W. Mack, ed. 1917)) (emphasis added).
This passage distinguishes between the right of public officials to protect state secrets, which is a common law privilege, and the constitutionally based theory of “immunity of the executive from judicial control on account of the tripartite separation of powers.” There were several governmental privileges widely understood to be available under common law, but these protections were limited in scope and generally qualified rather than absolute even when they applied. See Jonathan David Shaub, Common Law Executive Privilege(s) (forthcoming 2025).
The passage also addresses judicial subpoenas to the “chief executive” (i.e., a governor or president) and opines (with some exaggeration) that it is “undisputed” such subpoenas cannot be enforced. The rationale given is based partly on common law privileges and partly on state and federal separation of powers principles that prohibit compulsion of the chief executive. But the fact that the chief executive is (or may be) beyond the compulsory power of the court does not imply the same for lower-level officers.
Finally, the passage baldly asserts that public officials are not required to submit “public papers to judicial scrutiny.” Again this seems to be a significant exaggeration, but there is language in some of the cases and secondary sources cited by the treatise which suggests a broad discretion on the part of chief executives and (sometimes) other high-level public officials to withhold certain types of public papers in judicial proceedings.
The authorities speaking to these questions are a mix of English and state cases, along with some 19th century evidentiary treatises. No federal authority had addressed the issue as of the time of the JOR memo. Moreover, none of the authorities spoke to congressional proceedings at all. According to Roberts, however, Myers somehow supports the proposition that while executive officers “are subject to subpoena to testify before the United States House of Representatives or a committee thereof in connection with hearings for legislative purposes, the question as to whether the public interest requires them to refuse to answer a question or refuse to produce records in their custody or control is for their determination as a public officer.” JOR memo at 4.
As noted in my last post, why Roberts thinks Myers supports this result is somewhat obscure. There seem to be two possible arguments, which are discussed below. Continue reading “The JOR Memo, the Myers Case, and the Theory of Executive Privilege”