Category: Oversight of the Executive

Posted on

Resources on Congressional Oversight and Executive-Legislative Information Disputes

As there appears to a current demand for resources on congressional oversight, executive privilege and the process for resolving executive-legislative disputes over information, I thought I would post a few suggestions as to places to look for such materials. First, there is this Congressional Investigations Research Page hosted by Georgetown Law (hat tip: Andy Wright). Second, the Congressional Oversight Manual has a list of selected readings starting at page 136. Third, Daniel Schuman has been collecting resources on the congressional oversight and subpoena power, particularly reform proposals.

Finally, here is a link to a 2002 brief filed by BLAG in Waxman v. Evans, which describes in some detail how executive-legislative information disputes have been resolved historically. To the best of my knowledge, this document has not previously been available on line.

Posted on

Resolved: The President’s Conduct with respect to the Special Counsel’s Investigation was Consistent with the Take Care Clause and his Constitutional Oath

Last year Professor Andy Wright published an article arguing that presidential interference with criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice may violate the president’s constitutional duties under Article II even if it does not constitute obstruction of justice or any other criminal offense established under federal statutory law. See Andrew M. Wright, The Take Care Clause, Justice Department Independence, and White House Control, 121 W. Va. L. Rev. 100 (2018). Specifically, he points to the president’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” U.S. const. art. II, § 3, and his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and [] to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” U.S. const. art. II, § 1, cl. 8. Wright contends that “if the President interferes with the investigative or prosecutorial function in bad faith, he can violate the Take Care Clause and his Oath of Office,” even if the president’s actions violate no criminal law.

At some level of generality, it is difficult to imagine anyone disagreeing with this proposition. That is to say, no one would argue the president satisfies his obligations under the Take Care and Oath Clauses simply by not committing a crime. At least I don’t think anyone would argue that.

More controversially, Professor Wright argues that the president’s constitutional obligations require prophylactic measures to separate the Justice Department from the White House and thereby “protect the integrity of . . . criminal investigation[s] from political interference, including interference by the President himself.” 121 W. Va. L. Rev. at 105. Specifically, he points to policies adopted by every administration since President Ford that limit contacts between the White House and the Justice Department by requiring most such contacts be channeled through the offices of White House counsel and the attorney general. 121 W. Va. L. Rev. at 141-50. These policies, and related practices such as the refusal of White Houses to comment on open investigations and pending cases, are not merely matters of etiquette and “norms,” Wright contends, but flow from the Take Care and Oath clauses.

Whether or not one embraces the specifics of Wright’s thesis, his article suggests an important line of questioning for current and former Trump administration officials, particularly from the White House counsel’s office and the top levels of the Justice Department. For example, as Wright points out, in the first week of the Trump administration White House Counsel Don McGahn issued a contacts policy memorandum designed “to ensure that DOJ exercises its investigatory and prosecutorial functions free from the fact or appearance of improper political interference.” 121 W. Va. L. Rev. at 149. Did the president approve this policy? Was he aware of its contents? Was he ever advised that actions he proposed or directed would violate the policy? Was the president’s conduct as described in volume II of the Mueller report consistent with the letter or spirit of this policy?

Apart from Trump administration officials (and members of the president’s legal team), is there anyone with actual or purported constitutional law expertise who would defend the proposition in the title of this blog post? There are notable scholars, such Professors Jack Goldsmith and Josh Blackman, who have advanced strong arguments that the president’s conduct in connection with the Mueller investigation (at least insofar as it involved the exercise of presidential powers) did not violate the criminal obstruction laws. But neither contends this conduct was consistent with the president’s obligations under the Take Care and Oath clauses.

Here is a political stunt that might serve a useful and clarifying purpose. The chair of the House Judiciary committee and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary committee should write their Republican counterparts to propose a hearing devoted to a panel of legal experts who would defend the proposition that the president’s conduct has been consistent with the Take Care and Oath clauses. Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Collins could be asked to propose a list of potential witnesses to appear at such a hearing.

We can’t have a debate unless someone is prepared to defend this proposition.

Posted on

A Better Way to Enforce Congressional Subpoenas?

In the course of writing the piece on enforcement of congressional subpoenas that I mentioned yesterday, I was looking for a copy of the House GOP white paper “A Better Way: Our Vision for a Confident America (The Constitution),” which was issued on June 16, 2016. At this time, of course, the Republican controlled Congress had experienced years of frustration in attempting to get information from the Obama administration (and, one has to imagine, was anticipating more of the same in a Hillary Clinton administration). As it turns out, finding a copy of this document online is more difficult than one would expect. Fortunately, I have located a hard copy in my files and post a link here for anyone who is interested (you’re welcome).

Among the proposals suggested by House Republicans in this paper was “expedited access to federal courts to enforce subpoenas” through legislation “requiring the executive branch to comply with deadlines in congressional subpoenas” and “providing a process for expedited court review when the House or Senate decides to bring litigation to enforce a committee subpoena, including expedited review by a three-judge panel at the district court level with immediate appeal to the Supreme Court.” These ideas would be incorporated into H.R. 4010, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, which passed the House in 2017 during the first session of the 115th congress but never received a vote in the Senate.

The white paper made two additional legislative proposals that did not make it into Issa’s legislation (at least in its final form). The first was to “clarify[] the nondiscretionary duty of a U.S. attorney to present a certified order for criminal contempt to a grand jury.” The second was to “statutorily eliminat[e] any privileges asserted by the executive branch when used against a congressional request for information.” Both of these would have been vigorously opposed by OLC and the executive branch on constitutional as well as policy grounds.

 

Posted on

Just Security Piece on Enforcement of Congressional Subpoenas

As I have mentioned before, I have proposed a reform to House rules that would facilitate enforcement of committee subpoenas to the executive branch. Just Security has now published this piece in which I explain the justification for the rule and how it would work using the example of the House Judiciary committee’s efforts to obtain the Mueller report and underlying documents.

Posted on

Recalibrating the “Subpoena Cannon”

(I know some artillery expert from Quora is going to correct my title but you get the idea).

To continue the martial metaphors, the House’s investigatory offensive against the Trump administration is meeting stiff resistance on all fronts or, one might say, running into a stone wall. The administration is refusing to cooperate with any oversight or investigation it considers to be hostile or partisan (so, basically all of them). This noncooperation can take the form of refusing to comply with document requests or subpoenas outright, simply ignoring them, delaying a final response (as in the case of the Ways & Means committee request to the treasury secretary for the Trump tax returns), placing conditions on compliance (as where the White House is refusing to allow witnesses to testify at congressional depositions unless a representative from the counsel’s office is also allowed to attend), instructing or encouraging former executive officials or others not to comply with congressional demands (as the administration apparently plans to do with respect to the Judiciary committee subpoena to former White House counsel Don McGahn), and even bringing legal action to prevent third parties from providing information to Congress (as discussed in my last post).

The situation has given rise to much handwringing in Congress, where House Democrats are predictably characterizing the administration’s actions as “massive, unprecedented obstruction.” The frustration is entirely understandable, but I agree with Andy Wright that it is a bit overwrought to describe the situation as a “constitutional crisis,” particularly at this early stage. The basic problems are ones faced by Congress in every administration, even though the scope of the investigations and sheer number of information disputes is unusual. Moreover, while it may be accurate to describe the administration as engaged in unprecedented stonewalling, it should also be remembered that the Mueller report provides Congress with an exceptional degree of visibility into the areas of the administration about which it is most concerned.

It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that the House faces a difficult set of challenges in responding to the administration’s recalcitrance because there is no clearly established mechanism for enforcing congressional subpoenas against the executive branch. If an executive branch official refuses to testify or produce documents based on the assertion of executive privilege at the direction of the president, the Justice Department has long maintained that it will not (and constitutionally may not) prosecute the official for contempt of Congress. See, e.g.,  Response to Congressional Requests for Information Regarding Decisions made Under the Independent Counsel Act, 10 OLC 68, 85 (Apr. 28, 1986). Thus, while a House committee may vote to hold this official in contempt and report the contempt to the full House, which in turn may adopt a resolution referring the matter to the U.S. attorney pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 194, the U.S. attorney will not present the matter to a grand jury and thus the House’s action will be largely symbolic.

It should be noted, however, that this calculus is arguably somewhat different in the case of a former executive branch official. While it is clear that the executive branch would contend that a former official should obey the president’s instructions as to the assertion of executive privilege, and it is highly likely that it would employ similar reasoning to avoid presenting any contempt citation to a grand jury, there is at least some possibility that a future administration might reach a different conclusion, placing the former official in legal jeopardy. At the very least, the former official might worry that having a formal citation of contempt by the House on the record might generate legal expenses or other collateral consequences down the road.

With criminal contempt largely useless, then, the House is considering other options, including inherent contempt. Again, as readers well know, this is the process by which the House (or Senate) can send the Sergeant at Arms to take a recalcitrant witness into custody, bring him before the bar of the house to explain his refusal to testify, and remand him to custody until he changes his mind. Although members of Congress are starting to make noises about reviving this process (something that happens periodically whenever there is divided government), these threats are not very credible in light of the fact that the House has not used it in about a century.

To solve that problem, the estimable Mort Rosenberg has proposed a House rule that would use fines, rather than arrest and detention, as the primary means of forcing executive branch officials to comply with congressional subpoenas. Judiciary committee chairman Nadler has apparently raised this as a way “to put teeth in his party’s numerous investigative inquiries, many of which Trump officials are stonewalling or simply ignoring.”

Not surprisingly, the Justice Department has suggested that it would be unconstitutional to employ inherent contempt against executive branch officials in situations where (it claims) separation of powers principles prohibit the use of criminal contempt. See 10 OLC at 86. There are also obvious practical problems that would be involved with attempting to detain an executive official. See id. (“it seems most unlikely that Congress would dispatch the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest and imprison an Executive Branch official who claimed executive privilege”). The House’s “cannon” is, after all, only metaphorical, and the executive branch has the Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police pretty well out-gunned. Imposing fines instead of imprisonment might mitigate, or at least postpone, this problem, but if the House wanted to have this option available it should have included it in the rules package that was adopted at the beginning of the congress.

Another suggestion is that the House could use political remedies, such as the appropriations process, to punish officials or agencies that refuse to comply with congressional demands for information. Professor Josh Chafetz is a big proponent of this technique. It seems to me that this can be effective when the resistance to congressional demands is coming from the agency level, but it is much harder to do when it is coming from the president (and harder still with this president). To the extent the House has leverage in the appropriations process vis a vis the Senate and the president, it is likely to use it for higher priority items than winning disputes over information access. Put another way, I don’t see the House shutting down the government to get an unredacted copy of the Mueller report.

This leaves what is most commonly thought of as the House’s best legal remedy, a civil action seeking declaratory or injunctive relief to enforce its right to obtain information. Most commonly, this would take the form of an action to enforce a subpoena, but other actions are also possible. For example, the Ways & Means committee could bring suit to enforce its statutory rights to obtain tax return information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f). Note that such an action would be analogous to an action to enforce congressional rights to information under 5 U.S.C. § 2954 (commonly known as the Rule of Seven), which is at issue in the case of Cummings v. Murphy currently pending in the D.C. Circuit (though likely presenting a stronger case for congressional standing than Cummings if the committee’s action were authorized by House resolution).

Civil enforcement of subpoenas presents its own set of challenges, namely (1) the absence of any clearly defined process for bringing such actions and unsettled legal issues of justiciability; (2) the fact that courts do not like to be in the middle of political disputes between the legislative and executive branches; and (3) the length of time that it would take to obtain a final enforceable court order, particularly because even if the House prevails at the district court level there will be inevitable appeals to the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court. Some of these problems could have been mitigated had the House adopted a brilliant proposed rule (still my blog) on civil enforcement of subpoenas, but alas it failed to do so. Nevertheless, civil enforcement remains the most promising avenue for legal vindication of the House’s constitutional rights. Continue reading “Recalibrating the “Subpoena Cannon””

Posted on

Local Rule 57.7 regarding Pretrial Publicity and the Release of the Mueller Report

The Justice Department has filed this “Government’s Notice Regarding Report of the Special Counsel” in the pending criminal case against Roger Stone.  The notice informs Judge Amy Berman Jackson that among the redactions to the Mueller report are “redactions made in consideration of Local Rule 57.7(c) and the Court’s order so that the public release of the Special Counsel’s report as redacted does not pose either a ‘substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case’ . . . or a ‘reasonable likelihood ‘ of ‘interfer[ing] with a fair trial or otherwise prejudic[ing] the due administration of justice.'” Although information regarding the Stone prosecution will be redacted from the version of the Mueller report released to Congress and the public on April 18, however, the notice informs the court that the Justice Department “plans to make available for review by a limited number of Members of Congress and their staff a copy of the Special Counsel’s report without certain redactions,” including those related to the Stone case.

Local Criminal Rule 57.7 restricts public dissemination of information by attorneys involved in criminal cases where “there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the administration of justice.” It also authorizes the court “[i]n a widely publicized or sensational criminal case” to issue a special order governing extrajudicial statements and other matters designed to limit publicity that might interfere with the conduct of a fair trial (Judge Jackson issued such an order in the Stone case on February 15, 2019).

The Justice Department’s theory is that the public release of the Mueller report, to the extent it contains information relating to the Stone prosecution, could be considered a violation of the local rule and/or the court’s order. It further suggests that providing this information to Congress in a manner in which Congress could make the information publicly available also could be considered a violation.

DOJ advanced a similar theory in connection with the terrorism prosecution of Zacharias Moussaoui. The congressional joint inquiry into the 9-11 attacks intended to hold a hearing at which witnesses, including ironically then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, would be questioned about matters such as the process by which the FBI conducted its investigation of Moussaoui. DOJ contended that such questions in a public hearing would violate Rule 57.7 and sought to persuade Judge Brinkema that she should in essence prohibit any such questioning (by preventing Mueller or other government witnesses from answering) in a public hearing.

DOJ’s request was properly rejected by Judge Brinkema. As the joint inquiry pointed out, Rule 57.7 explicitly provides that nothing in it is intended “to preclude the holding of hearings or the lawful issuance of reports by legislative, administrative, or investigative bodies.” Moreover, any interpretation of the rule that allowed the court to interfere with congressional proceedings would raise serious separation of powers issues.

For similar reasons it is debatable whether either the rule or the court’s order pursuant to it would provide a lawful basis for restricting congressional access to the Mueller report (or perhaps the redaction of material from the report in the first place). Nevertheless, the Department’s proposal that members and staff first be given limited access to a less redacted version of the report is a common sense approach to the problem (and, of course, is similar to the Freeh/LaBella procedure we have previously discussed). If, following this initial review, Congress requests copies of a less redacted version of the report, DOJ will “seek guidance” from the court on this request.

It is important to note that the “less redacted” version of the Mueller report will “include,” but not be limited to, portions of the report related to the Stone case. One can infer that DOJ is prepared to negotiate with Congress about which redactions can be “unredacted” (that’s probably not an actual word) for purposes of review by designated members/staff. This suggests to me that the Department understands that eventually Congress will be given an opportunity to see a mostly if not entirely unredacted version of the report and to make its case to some judge (whether Judge Jackson in the Stone case, Chief Judge Howell as the supervising authority for the grand jury or Judge Walton who is hearing the FOIA case) as to why it needs that version of the report.

In other words, we are moving closer to a Freeh/LaBella solution to the redaction controversy.

Posted on

Barr on Grand Jury Redactions

I have not watched most of Attorney General Barr’s testimony over the past couple days, but I gather from clips and reporting that he has made a few remarks regarding grand jury material redactions from the Mueller report. I have a few brief comments on these statements.

First, Barr notes, correctly, that under the Mckeever decision no grand jury material can be provided to Congress or the public except pursuant to one of the express exceptions set forth in Rule 6(e). He also indicates he does not see at the moment that any of those exceptions apply. He suggests, however, a willingness to discuss 6(e) redactions once the report is released, specifically with regard to any redactions that might be material to understanding the report or its conclusions.

Barr mentions the possibility of “workarounds” with regard to the redacted material. By this he might mean providing non-grand jury material that would provide the needed context or substantiation to substitute for whatever was redacted. He also may be leaving open the possibility of seeking permission from the court to release 6(e) material, although he appears disinclined to go that route at the moment.

Barr made one comment of potential legal significance. With regard to grand jury material in the report to Congress by independent counsel Ken Starr, Barr suggested that this was immaterial to the current circumstances because Starr was operating pursuant to a statute that “overrode” the provisions of Rule 6(e). Barr here is referring to 28 U.S.C. § 595(c), discussed in my prior post, which provided “[a]n independent counsel shall advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible information . . . that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.”

Barr is correct that in Starr’s view § 595(c) overrode the requirements of grand jury secrecy. As explained in Starr’s report to Congress (see note 18), however, out of an abundance of caution he also sought express authorization from the Special Division to disclose grand jury material. The Special Division then authorized Starr to release grand jury material and provided “this authorization constitutes an order for purposes of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(i) permitting disclosure of all grand jury material that the independent counsel deems necessary to comply with the requirements of § 595(c).”

The Special Division’s order does not say that section 595(c) overrides the requirements of grand jury secrecy. It may or may not have agreed with Starr on this point. By issuing an order pursuant to the “judicial proceeding” exception, however, the panel indicated that Starr’s disclosure was also justified under that exception, presumably because it was “preliminarily to” the “judicial proceeding” of impeachment.

Of course, it is impossible to know from the Special Division’s brief order what role section 595(c) played in its decision to invoke the “judicial proceeding” exception. It may have believed, for example, that section 595(c) effectively gave the independent counsel the authority to decide what materials were necessary for the House to receive. (That Starr’s application to the Special Division is still under seal makes it particularly difficult to discern the panel’s thinking on this). Nevertheless, it is hard to see how its order makes sense unless impeachment is the “judicial proceeding” on which it was based. This in turn indicates that a disclosure can be “preliminarily to” an impeachment proceeding even if no impeachment inquiry has yet been formally initiated.

It should also be noted that the Freeh/LaBella disclosure was not made pursuant to section 595(c). Although it is possible that the Justice Department could attempt to distinguish that disclosure on the grounds that an impeachment inquiry was underway (although on a different subject than that of the disclosure), there is nothing in the language of Rule 6(e) or in any of the relevant precedents to suggest that this is a material distinction.

In short, if Barr is merely suggesting that the absence of section 595(c)’s reporting requirement makes it inappropriate to seek here the kind of blanket authorization to disclose grand jury material received by Ken Starr, he makes a reasonable point. If, on the other hand, he is arguing that Chief Judge Howell would be without power to order disclosure of grand jury material in the Mueller report because of the absence of a “judicial proceeding,” he is in my opinion mistaken.

Posted on

The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever Decision Supports Use of the Freeh/LaBella Procedure for Handling the Mueller Report

On its face, Friday’s D.C. Circuit decision in McKeever v. Barr, involving a historian’s request for access to grand jury materials from 1957 for purposes of a book he is writing, might seem to have little relevance to redactions in the Mueller report. In fact, however, the decision turns on the court’s interpretation of a 1974 precedent in which Chief Judge Sirica authorized “disclosure of a sealed grand jury report to aid in the inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee into possible grounds for impeachment of President Nixon.” McKeever, majority slip op. at 9 n. 3; see In re Report & Recommendation of June 5, 1972 Grand Jury, 370 F. Supp. 1219 (D.D.C. 1974). More precisely, it turns on the McKeever court’s interpretation of the D.C. Circuit’s 1974 en banc interpretation of Judge Sirca’s decision. See Haldeman v. Sirica, 501 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc).

As explained below, this decision is potentially  significant with respect to the Mueller report.

The McKeever majority ruled that judges lack inherent authority to disclose grand jury materials protected by Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) outside of the express exceptions set forth in that rule. Acknowledging the court’s decision in Haldeman was ambiguous on this point, McKeever construed Haldeman as approving Judge Sirica’s disclosure on the grounds that a House impeachment inquiry is a “judicial proceeding” for purposes of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E)(i), which is one of the explicit exceptions to grand jury secrecy set forth in the rule. McKeever, majority slip op. at 9 n. 3. It therefore concluded Haldeman did not stand as a precedent in favor of a court’s inherent authority to release grand jury materials.

Judge Srinivasan dissented in McKeever. While he noted that the “judicial proceeding” exception to Rule 6(e) “arguably applied” to the release of a grand jury report to Congress in connection with an impeachment investigation, he did not interpret Judge Sirica’s decision as relying on that exception. Instead, in Judge Srinivasan’s view the best reading of the en banc opinion in Haldeman was that it approved Judge Sirica’s exercise of inherent authority to release the report. See McKeever, dissent slip op. at 2-5.

Whatever one’s evaluation of the relative strengths of these positions, the majority opinion in McKeever is, at least for the moment, the controlling law in the D.C. Circuit. Thus, Congress cannot now ask the district court to release grand jury material in the Mueller report based on the court’s inherent authority. The Justice Department likewise could not support such a request even if it agreed with it (which it clearly would not, given that DOJ urged the narrow reading of the court’s authority adopted by the McKeever majority).

This does not mean, however, that Congress has no options for obtaining access to grand jury material in the Mueller report. It merely means that any disclosure to Congress must be pursuant to one of the express exceptions to grand jury secrecy listed in Rule 6(e).

Continue reading “The D.C. Circuit’s McKeever Decision Supports Use of the Freeh/LaBella Procedure for Handling the Mueller Report”

Posted on

A Proposal for Dealing with Mueller Report Redactions

In our political culture of contempt and pervasive paranoia, it is hardly surprising that Attorney General Barr’s refusal to release immediately the unreacted Mueller report has led many to accuse him of a coverup. So while I agree with Ben Wittes that everyone should chill out and wait to see what Barr actually produces in the next week or so, the reality is that any redactions will raise suspicions.

Fortunately, there is a relatively simple way to address this problem. The idea comes from the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton in 1998. The House Judiciary committee, which was reviewing the allegations against Clinton in the Starr report, wanted access to the Freeh and LaBella memos, internal Justice Department documents that recommended appointment of an independent counsel to investigate campaign fundraising violations during the 1996 presidential election cycle. The Justice Department took the position that these memoranda could not be shared with Congress because, among other reasons, they contained grand jury material protected under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). (It would later turn out DOJ had been rather overly enthusiastic about designating grand jury material, including for example a quote from a Dick Morris book).

In light of the impeachment investigation (and the associated political pressure from Congress), the Clinton Justice Department agreed to ask the judge supervising the grand jury, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, to allow the committee access to the memoranda. After a couple of attempts (the committee, through House counsel, had to file its own motion after the court denied DOJ’s first request), Judge Johnson agreed to allow the committee limited access to the memoranda. As Peter Baker described the court’s decision: “Each side could send a single staff member to read the memos, but no copies could be made and no notes taken.” Peter Baker, The Breach: Inside the Impeachment and Trial of William Jefferson Clinton 183-85 (2000). That way the committee would have a basis for requesting any additional material it believed was relevant to its proceedings (it ultimately did not do so).

A similar process could be used to deal with redactions from the Mueller report. The court could permit two Judiciary committee staffers (one majority, one minority) to review the unreacted report. They would be prohibited from taking notes or disclosing the contents of the report publicly. If, however, there were redactions the committee believed to be improper or to contain important information, it could ask the court to release that information.

This seems like a reasonable way for protecting any legitimate Justice Department interests while reassuring the public that the attorney general is fulfilling his promise of maximum transparency.

Posted on

Why Congress May Not Want a Completely Unredacted Mueller Report

Yesterday we discussed potential redactions to the Mueller report with respect to grand jury material protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Today we will discuss the other category of redactions mentioned in Attorney General Barr’s March 24 letter, namely “any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices.” In other words, the report contains some information about, or that “could impact,” ongoing criminal matters relating to the subject of the special counsel’s investigation and/or individuals involved involved in that investigation as targets, subjects or witnesses.

Historically, the Justice Department has been extremely reluctant to share its internal investigative and litigation files with Congress. Attorney General Robert Jackson famously declared the executive branch position in a 1941 opinion responding to congressional requests for FBI reports and other internal DOJ documents relating to investigations of labor unrest in industrial establishments with naval contracts. See Position of the Executive Dep’t Regarding Investigative Reports, 40 Op. Atty Gen. 45, 1941 U.S. AG Lexis 28 (Apr. 30, 1941). Jackson argued that such disclosure “would not be in the public interest” because it would “seriously prejudice law enforcement” (by tipping the government’s hand to actual and potential defendants), assist foreign adversaries, undermine the use of confidential informants and perpetuate “the grossest kind of injustice to innocent individuals.” Id.  at **2-4. Jackson allowed, however, that there were exceptions to the executive’s position, including that “pertinent information would be supplied in impeachment proceedings, usually instituted at the suggestion of the Department and for the good of the administration of justice.” Id. at *12.

In fact, Congress has been successful in obtaining internal Justice Department documents on a number of occasions. See generally Congressional Investigations of the Department of Justice, 1920-2012: History, Law, and Practice, CRS Report for Congress 15-49 (Nov. 5, 2012). In most if not all cases, however, the congressional investigation involved alleged wrongdoing at the Justice Department itself, not merely an attempt to learn about wrongdoing being investigated by the Department. Moreover, Congress has been far more successful at obtaining information from closed investigations. Thus CRS notes:

In the last 85 years, Congress has consistently sought and obtained access to information concerning prosecutorial misconduct in Department of Justice officials in closed cases; and access to pre-decisional deliberative prosecutorial memoranda– while often resisted by the Department– is usually released upon committee insistence, as well. In contrast, the Department rarely releases– and committees rarely subpoena– material relevant to open criminal investigations.

Id. at 2.

This suggests that the Justice Department would be on solid ground if it redacted information from the Mueller report relating to open criminal investigations, particularly in the absence of any claim of wrongdoing regarding how the Department is handling those investigations. (Note the potential irony that those in Congress who are alleging wrongdoing at the Department, namely House Republicans, are likely not those who would be pushing for full disclosure of the Mueller report). Moreover, congressional investigating committees might want to think twice before insisting that information relating to open criminal investigations be produced since this will tip off potential defendants as to what allegations are being investigated and what evidence exists to support them.

Of course, the committees will want to scrutinize any redactions to make sure that they are no broader than necessary to protect the integrity of ongoing investigations. They will properly demand assurance that none of the redacted information will be shared with potential defendants, including the president. They may even ask the attorney general to promise that specified Justice Department officials are free to share information they believe to be relevant to impeachment proceedings with the House Judiciary committee (I am not placing any bets on how likely they are to get that).

At the end of the day, though, Congress may not want to take a knee-jerk position against any redactions related to open criminal investigations.