Posts

Posted on

Update on BLAG’s Authority to Initiate Subpoena Enforcement Action

As I discussed in a prior post,  House Rule II(8)(B) currently provides with respect to the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group:

There is established a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group composed of the Speaker and the majority and minority leaderships. Unless otherwise provided by the House, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group speaks for, and articulates the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters.

As I noted in the prior post, it is possible to argue that this provision authorizes BLAG to initiate litigation on behalf of and in the name of the House. This raises the question whether BLAG could file a subpoena enforcement action on behalf and in the name of the House without a House vote on the particular subpoena in question. Such an interpretation would have to be squared with the language of House Rule XI that “[c]ompliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or subcommittee . . . may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.”

It turns out that I was not the first person to think of this. Unbeknownst to me (and, I suspect, most House members), Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern had inserted the following statement in the record on January 3, 2019:

I want to speak regarding House Rule II(8)(B). Pursuant to this provision, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) is delegated the authority to speak for the full House of Representatives with respect to all litigation matters. A vote of the BLAG to authorize litigation and to articulate the institutional position of the House in that litigation, is the equivalent of a vote of the full House of Representatives. For example, in the 115th Congress, the BLAG, pursuant to Rule II(8)(B), authorized House Committees to intervene in ongoing litigation. The BLAG has been delegated this authority for all litigation matters, and I want to be clear that this includes litigation related to the civil enforcement of a Committee subpoena. If a Committee determines that one or more of its duly issued subpoenas has not been complied with and that civil enforcement is necessary, the BLAG, pursuant to House Rule (II)(8)(B), may authorize the House Office of General Counsel to initiate civil litigation on behalf of this Committee to enforce the Committee’s subpoena(s) in federal district court.

Based on this “legislative history,” would a court conclude that BLAG’s authority to “speak[] for, and articulate[] the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters” empowers it to authorize a committee to bring suit in federal court? I remain somewhat skeptical, but Chairman McGovern’s statement presumably would strengthen that argument. It appears, however, that the House is planning to adopt a much more explicit resolution on that issue, which is wise.

Posted on

OLC’s Law Office History of Testimonial Immunity

On May 20, 2019, the Office of Legal Counsel released an opinion entitled “Testimonial Immunity Before Congress of the Former Counsel to the President,” in which OLC concludes that former White House counsel Don McGahn is constitutionally immune from being required to appear, much less testify, before the House Judiciary Committee. Before analyzing OLC’s substantive argument, I want to address two factual assertions it makes about historical practice and its own legal advice regarding this issue.

OLC makes two basic claims. First, it contends that executive branch practice “at least since the Truman Administration” provides a “strong historical foundation for the Executive Branch’s position that Congress may not compel the President’s senior advisers to appear and testify.” Second, it asserts that “for nearly five decades” the Justice Department has maintained that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

One might question the relevance of these assertions even if they were true. Neither the executive branch’s unilateral practice of objecting to congressional testimony by White House officials nor its internal opinions regarding the constitutional basis for this practice would constitute authority binding on the other branches, particularly in the absence of any evidence or even allegation of congressional acquiescence. Nevertheless, it is worth scrutinizing OLC’s claims if for no other reason than that it seems to place a great deal of reliance on them. Perhaps this is because, as Judge Bates observed in 2008, the only authority offered by the executive branch for the proposition that White House officials enjoy testimonial immunity is OLC’s prior opinions on the subject.

That being said, the historical record does not support either of OLC’s claims. Today we will look at the evidence with regard to OLC’s description of the historical record. In a future post we will look at its claims regarding its prior advice.

Practice Prior to the Nixon Administration. The Executive Office of the President dates back only to the 1930s, and OLC maintains that since that time “the long-standing policy has been to decline invitations for voluntary appearances and to resist congressional subpoenas for involuntary ones” with respect to White House officials.

OLC has identified only six instances in which White House officials attempted to refuse congressional invitations or demands for testimony during the period prior to the Nixon administration. In three of these cases, the official in question ultimately agreed to testify as the result of political or legal pressure (or both) exerted by Congress.

[Note: CRS has identified a couple of additional instances during the 1940s where White House officials testified regarding allegations they misused their positions for personal gain, but it is not apparent there was any objection in those cases. See CRS Report on Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees: An Overview 7-8 (Apr. 10, 2007).]

First, in 1944 during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, a Senate subcommittee subpoenaed a presidential aide, Jonathan Daniels, to testify about his reported attempts to compel the head of the Rural Electrification Administration to resign. The aide appeared but refused to testify based on his confidential relationship with the president. After the subcommittee unanimously recommended Daniels be held in contempt, the aide wrote to the subcommittee that he had conferred with the president, who had decided his testimony would not be contrary to the public interest, and was therefore willing to return to the Hill and testify.

A second instance (which is not mentioned in OLC’s May 20 opinion but comes from earlier OLC discussions of this period) concerns Donald Dawson, an aide to President Truman, who was asked in 1951 to testify before a Senate subcommittee investigating the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Truman “reluctantly” gave permission to Dawson to testify because the inquiry included allegations of wrongdoing against Dawson and Truman wished to give the aide an opportunity to clear his name.

Finally, in 1958 during the Eisenhower administration, the president’s chief of staff, Sherman Adams, testified (with the president’s approval) before a House subcommittee regarding allegations he had improperly interfered with administrative proceedings for the benefit of a New England industrialist with whom he had a longstanding friendship.

On the other hand, OLC identifies three instances in which presidential advisers successfully refused to testify before Congress during this period. One concerned John Steelman, an aide to President Truman, who in 1948 refused subpoenas to testify before a House subcommittee about his communications with Truman regarding administration of the Taft-Hartley Act during a strike. Another also involved Sherman Adams, who in 1955 successfully refused an invitation from a Senate subcommittee to testify regarding a contract between the Atomic Energy Commission and two power companies. Finally, in 1968 an aide to President Lyndon Johnson, W. DeVier Pierson, declined to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations that Associate Justice Abe Fortas, whose nomination to become chief justice was pending, had inappropriately been involved in drafting certain legislation while serving on the Supreme Court.

It is difficult to see how this history shows anything other than the fact that the White House generally prefers that its staff not testify before Congress. Indeed, in a 1971 internal memorandum (about which more later), Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist described the practice during this period as “erratic” and noted that “[t]hese precedents are obviously quite inconclusive.” See Memorandum for John D. Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Power of Congressional Committee to Compel Testimony of “White House Staff” 4, 6 (Feb. 5, 1971) (“Rehnquist Memorandum”). This would seem to directly contradict OLC’s current assertion that these “precedents” provide a “strong historical foundation” for its constitutional theory.

Practice Since the Nixon Administration. While the  pre-Nixon history provides little or no support for OLC’s position, at least its description of that history appears to be fair. On the other hand, its description of the later history suffers from egregious cherry-picking. Although OLC acknowledges that its examples are “not exhaustive,” it implies that they fairly represent the practice during this period. This is not so.

Nixon administration. OLC cites the refusal of Peter Flanigan, a White House aide, to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the nomination of Richard Kleindienst to be attorney general. Somehow it fails to mention that the White House relented within a few days and that Flanigan both appeared before the committee and answered written questions for the record. See Louis Fisher, The Politics of Executive Privilege 73 (2004).

Carter administration. OLC cites two examples of Carter White House aides declining to appear in public congressional hearings, but it neglects to mention that both the White House counsel and national security adviser appeared at congressional hearings regarding alleged misconduct by the president’s brother. Fisher, supra, at 202.

Reagan administration. OLC cites the refusal of the White House counsel to appear in person before a congressional committee (he did agree to answer written questions) regarding allegations of corruption against the secretary of labor. It does not mention President Reagan’s directive to all administration officials to cooperate with the congressional investigation of Iran-Contra, which resulted in a number of former White House officials testifying before Congress. Fisher, supra, at 62-64, 202.

Clinton administration. OLC cites President Clinton’s directive to Beth Nolan, counsel to the president, not to testify before a House committee regarding a clemency decision, but it does not mention that Nolan, along with a number of other former White House aides, testified before the same committee regarding Clinton’s subsequent pardons. Fisher, supra, at 219. It also overlooks the fact that “[a] series of congressional investigations throughout the Clinton years required a large number of White House aides to testify about procedures and actions involving contacts with the Treasury Department, the dismissals of employees in the Travel Office, Whitewater, and access to FBI files.” Fisher, supra, at 203.

Even where OLC acknowledges that presidential  aides have testified, it downplays the significance of these facts. For example, OLC acknowledges in a footnote that during Watergate President Nixon allowed current and former White House officials to appear before Congress, first in closed session and then later in open hearings. However, OLC interprets such occurrences as merely “accommodations” to Congress, as opposed to evidence that executive branch practice with respect to congressional testimony by presidential advisers has been inconsistent, non-absolute, or both. This approach renders OLC’s position non-falsifiable since it only counts evidence that supports it.

Conclusion

Rather than constituting a “strong historical foundation” for OLC’s claim of absolute immunity, the evidence supports Lou Fisher’s conclusion that while Congress does not call White House officials to testify regarding routine oversight matters, it does do so when the circumstances warrant, particularly in cases where these officials have an operational role or are fact witnesses to alleged misconduct. See Fisher, supra, at 226-227. Under these conditions White House officials have in fact testified, “and in large numbers.” Id. at 199; see also CRS Report, supra, at 7-20.

 

 

Posted on

Why the Mazars and New York Bank Cases are Moving So Fast, and Why Others Will Not

On Monday, May 20, 2019, Judge Mehta dismissed Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform, No. 19-civ-01136 (D.D.C.). The judge’s ruling came just four weeks after President Trump (in his personal capacity) and several of his businesses filed suit to enjoin enforcement of a congressional subpoena to Mazars, an accounting firm that had worked for the Trump companies.  This quick resolution may have surprised some observers because legal experts have been predicting that legal fights between the administration and Congress are likely to drag on for many months if not years and could well be still in litigation when this congress expires in January 2021.

It is important to understand, however, that the Mazars case (and the case in New York which Trump seeks to block congressional subpoena to banks for his financial records) are in a very different procedural posture from other ongoing information disputes (such as those over the Mueller report and related documents, tax returns, or the testimony of current or former administration officials). Mazars and the New York banks are third parties that have indicated they will comply with the congressional subpoenas unless ordered to do otherwise by a court. Therefore, it is Trump’s legal team which needs judicial intervention to alter the status quo, whereas in the other disputes Congress will likely be in the position of asking for judicial assistance.

In the Mazar and New York bank cases, Trump’s legal team initially asked for emergency judicial relief (i.e., a TRO) in order to prevent the cases from becoming moot by virtue of the third parties complying with the subpoenas. In both cases, however, the House Counsel’s office agreed to postpone the return date for the subpoenas until 7 days after a district court ruling on the motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby rendering it unnecessary to have a TRO. As part of the same agreement, the parties agreed to an expedited schedule for briefing and oral argument (which both courts accepted and entered as orders).

As the result of that agreement, Trump’s team was now in the position of nominally seeking expedited relief (a preliminary injunction), but actually no longer needing it so long as the court did not rule on the preliminary injunction motion. This anomaly presented itself when Judge Mehta proposed consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with a final trial on the merits. Trump’s lawyers objected, saying that they needed more time to prepare for such a trial, and suggesting that instead the preliminary injunction hearing could be pushed back so the record could be fully developed. The House oversight committee, in contrast, had no objection to the proposed consolidation, but emphasized that the preliminary injunction hearing should go on as scheduled regardless.

Judge Mehta did in fact consolidate the merits trial with the preliminary injunction, but it is not clear this mattered much. If the judge had simply denied the preliminary injunction, Mazars would have been expected to comply with the subpoena after 7 days regardless. Presumably Trump’s lawyers would have asked for the judge to stay his ruling until a final merits decision, but they would have been in no better posture (and arguably somewhat worse) than they were as a result of the consolidation. Following the court’s ruling against them on both the preliminary injunction and the merits, they asked the court for a stay, which was denied. Now the plaintiffs’ only option is to obtain a stay from the D.C. Circuit so as to prevent the case from becoming moot before the appellate court can hear it. Had the case not been consolidated, they probably could have sought such relief from the appellate court, but it might have been even harder to get the court to intervene on a matter that was still before the district court (admittedly I am just guessing about this).

In any event, unless the D.C. Circuit issues a stay of the district court’s ruling, Mazars will be required to comply with the subpoena as early as next week. If Judge Ramos, who is presiding over Trump v. Deutsche Bank, No. 1:19-cv-03826 (SDNY) and is hearing argument today,  similarly denies Trump’s preliminary injunction motion, that case could also end within a week of the ruling unless either the district court or the Second Circuit issue a stay.

None of the other information disputes currently percolating are likely to move anywhere nearly as quickly as this. If cases are brought directly against the administration (eg, for the Mueller report or Trump’s tax returns), the congressional plaintiff will not be able to seek expedited relief (a TRO or preliminary injunction) since it will be seeking to change, not preserve, the status quo. Moreover, the executive branch defendant will have little incentive to agree to an expedited briefing or argument.

Exactly how fast a case may move at the district court level will depend on a number of factors, including the complexity of the legal issues and whether any discovery or document review is necessary to resolve the matter (going through the 1.4 million pages of Mueller documents to determine the applicability of different executive privilege claims, for example, could take a very long time). But even a case that presents a relatively straightforward legal issue is likely to take a few months with a normal briefing and argument schedule. In the Miers case, for example, Judge Bates issued his ruling in favor of the House Judiciary Committee about 4 and a half months after the action was filed.

Of course, the district court has a great deal of discretion with regard to scheduling matters. Judge Mehta clearly believed that it was important to expedite the Mazars case (even going so far as to consolidate the merits trial on his own initiative). Even there, though, the court’s reasons for acting quickly were based in part on the fact that it was being asked to interfere with the functioning of a coordinate branch of government. A district court might be less inclined to act quickly when it is being asked by the legislative branch to order the executive branch to turn over information.

Furthermore, however quickly the district court decides the case, the executive branch still has the right to appeal that decision, to seek rehearing en banc of any appellate decision, and ultimately to petition the Supreme Court for review. Even assuming that neither the en banc court nor the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, it is difficult to imagine the full process being complete in much less than a year.

One category of case that might be resolved more quickly would be enforcement actions by Congress against former executive officials like Don McGahn. These individuals are in a situation somewhat analogous to third parties like Mazars, in that they do not have (or purport not to have) a position or interest in whether or not they comply with the subpoena. On the other hand, they do purport to have an obligation to follow the president’s instructions with regard to asserting executive privilege (though opinions differ on whether such an obligation exists).

At any rate, if a district court orders such a former official to comply with a congressional subpoena, the    former official may not wish to risk possible contempt of court by continuing to defy the subpoena. Even if the Justice Department is able to obtain a stay from the district court or the court of appeals, the former official could decide that the district court’s decision is sufficient to release him from any further obligation not to comply. Thus, these cases could be resolved more quickly than direct suits against the executive branch, though probably not as quickly as the Mazars and New York bank cases.

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

Can BLAG Authorize a Subpoena Enforcement Action?

According to this CNN report, the House Ways & Means committee, which had previously requested President Trump’s tax returns pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f), has now issued subpoenas to the Treasury Department and IRS for the same information. Although the committee believes that it can sue to enforce the statutory duty to provide information under § 6103(f), it was advised by House counsel that issuing subpoenas would bolster its case in court.

There are interesting questions about the scope of the committee’s authority under § 6103(f), which we have previously discussed, and whether the issuance of subpoenas will help or hurt the committee’s chances in court. However, what I want to highlight now is an issue that may be more consequential than these. According to CNN, the speaker is considering whether to authorize a civil action to enforce the subpoenas (and, presumably, the committee’s statutory right of access) through the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, rather than a vote of the House. Back in February, I raised the possibility that language added to House Rule II(8)(B) in the 114th congress could be used in this fashion.

The new language in question provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by the House, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group speaks for, and articulates the institutional position of, the House in all litigation matters.” There are two potential problems with using this language to allow BLAG to authorize a lawsuit by the Ways & Means committee. The first is that the language does not explicitly authorize BLAG to initiate litigation on the House’s behalf. The purpose of the rule change was “to conform to current practice.” As explained in my February post, this referred to the practice of BLAG intervening in existing litigation to defend the constitutionality of statutes (in particular, the Defense of Marriage Act) the Justice Department refused to defend. There was not, and as far as I know has never been, a practice of BLAG initiating litigation.

There is a second problem with respect to litigation to enforce subpoenas. House Rule XI(2)(m)(3)(C) provides “[c]ompliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or subcommittee . . . may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.” This provision seems to override Rule II(8)(B), which only applies “[u]nless otherwise provided by the House.” One would have to argue, somewhat circularly, that Rule II(8)(B) allows BLAG to authorize or direct subpoena enforcement on behalf of the House, in order to prevent Rule XI(2)(m)(3)(C) from overriding Rule II(8)(B). I am somewhat skeptical that the parliamentarians would agree with this argument, but . . . (this is where I would insert the shruggie emoji if we were on Twitter).

In any event, if BLAG claims the authority to authorize subpoena enforcement actions, this could improve the efficiency of the “subpoena cannon” considerably. On the other hand, it will almost certainly lead the minority to challenge both BLAG’s interpretation of the rules and its decisions to authorize particular actions on the House floor.