Posts

Posted on

The Justice Department’s Broad New Attack on Congressional Standing

Ever since the January 3 D.C. Circuit oral argument in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn (which you can listen to here), I have been puzzling over the Justice Department’s position with regard to the issue of congressional standing. (I mean, that’s not the only thing I’ve been doing, in case you were worrying about my mental health.)

The Justice Department lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, made a point of stressing DOJ’s view that Congress lacks standing to sue anybody for anything, including suing private parties to enforce subpoenas or redress other informational injuries. As an alternative to this broader position, he offered the “narrower” view that Congress lacks standing to bring suits against the executive branch, arguing that history establishes that such interbranch disputes are to be resolved through the political process.

Judge Griffith, in particular, seemed somewhat taken aback by the broad position. As he pointed out, the Senate has long had statutory authority specifically authorizing it to enforce its subpoenas in court (though there is an exception for federal executive officials asserting authorized governmental privileges). See 28 U.S.C. § 1365; 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(b), 288d. Mooppan said the Justice Department believes that statute to be unconstitutional, though he added it would be “more unconstitutional” if there were no exception.

Judge Griffith, of course, is intimately familiar with the Senate statute, having served as Senate Legal Counsel from 1995-99. While the Senate infrequently exercises this statutory authority, it has done so  on at least seven occasions since the statute was enacted in 1978. See Morton Rosenberg, When Congress Comes Calling 27-28 (2017). It does not appear that on any of these occasions, the most recent of which occurred in 2016, was the Senate’s standing challenged. See Senate Perm. Subcomm. on Investigations v. Ferrer, No. 16-5232 (D.C. Cir. May 16, 2017). That might be one reason why Judge Griffith was surprised by DOJ’s broad position.

Another reason he might have been surprised is that the Justice Department has not, as far as I can tell, ever taken this position before. This includes the briefs submitted in the McGahn case itself, which appear to advance only the narrower theory that “the Committee lacks Article III standing to seek judicial resolution of this interbranch dispute.” Br. for Defendant-Appellant at 14 (Dec. 9, 2019); Reply Br. for Defendant-Appellant at 2 (Dec. 19, 2019), Comm. on the Judiciary v. McGahn (D.C. Cir.) (No. 19-5331). Although at least one element of DOJ’s argument (relating to the nature of the injury) would be applicable to any subpoena enforcement, the overwhelming focus is on the interbranch nature of the dispute. See Br. of Defendant-Appellant, supra, at 14-33; Reply Br. of Defendant-Appellant, supra, at 2-12. More importantly, nowhere in its McGahn papers does DOJ explicitly state that congressional committees lack standing to enforce subpoenas against parties other than the executive branch.

This surely was not an accident. For more than two decades, the Justice Department has danced around the question of congressional standing to enforce subpoenas,  and in particular whether Congress has standing to enforce subpoenas against private parties and other non-executive branch actors. For example, in 2008 the Justice Department discussed the Senate’s statutory authority to enforce subpoenas and observed in a footnote that “[w]hether the Senate would have Article III standing for an action brought pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 288 is, of course, a separate question.” Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Counts I and II (May 9, 2008), Comm. on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008). But as far as I know DOJ never attempted to answer this question in Miers or any other case up until January 3, 2020.

So why, then, has DOJ chosen this moment to take a definitive stand on this issue?

I have a theory. But, first, some history will be helpful. I will cover that in my next post.

Posted on

Who Decides When the Chief Justice Presides?

A few days ago I tweeted the following in regard to the debate over whether President Trump has actually been impeached:

There is a simple way to resolve this. @senatemajldr should send a note to the Chief Justice, notifying him of the House vote. If the CJ shows up at the Senate the next day, Trump is impeached. If not, six more weeks of winter.

This was intended to be a joke. (In case you were wondering whether I know the difference between the chief justice and a groundhog). On second thought, though, it raises a couple of interesting points. (Well, I think they’re interesting. You can decide for yourself.).

First, while the debate over whether Trump has been impeached is largely rhetorical, there is a substantive constitutional question underlying it. Has the House completed the actions required to allow the Senate to commence an impeachment trial? Or is it necessary for the House to take additional steps (such as providing formal notice, appointing managers, or exhibiting the articles of impeachment) before the Senate may constitutionally exercise the power to try impeachments?

I emphasize the question of constitutional power, as distinct from the operation of the Senate’s impeachment rules, which themselves may require the House to provide formal notice before a trial may begin. These rules are subject to amendment or reinterpretation by the Senate, but there is also a constitutional limitation on the Senate’s authority which is beyond the power of that body to change. The Constitution implicitly forbids the Senate from trying an impeachment until its jurisdiction has been invoked by action of the House. Cf. Jefferson’s Manual Sec. LIII (“The Lords can not impeach any to themselves, nor join in the accusation, because they are the judges.). The question is whether the House’s impeachment vote is sufficient as a constitutional matter to trigger the Senate’s jurisdiction.

This question is not answered by the fact that the Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Each house has exclusive authority to determine how to exercise its own power, but this does not mean it has the exclusive authority to determine when the power exists in the first place (or what the courts would call “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction”). Such an issue would arise if the House attempted to impeach or the Senate attempted to try a person who claimed not to be subject to the impeachment power at all (e.g., a private citizen). It similarly arises if there is a dispute whether an individual has been impeached such that the Senate’s power to try the impeachment is invoked.

Let’s imagine then in the current situation that the Senate attempts to act upon the House’s impeachment of President Trump. The House could take the position that the Senate has not yet acquired jurisdiction and lacks the power to act. For the reasons noted above, this dispute would be distinguishable from  questions relating to the Senate’s authority to determine how to “try” an impeachment, which were found to be nonjusticiable by the Supreme Court. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). Nonetheless, it is unlikely that a court could or would arbitrate such a dispute between the houses.

This, however, is where the second interesting point arises. The Senate cannot exercise its power to try this impeachment without summoning the chief justice to preside. See Nixon, 506 U.S. at 230 (noting there are “three very specific requirements that the Constitution does impose on the Senate when trying impeachments: The Members must be under oath, a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried.”). If the Senate’s jurisdiction is in controversy, the House could ask the chief justice not to appear. Arguably, the chief justice would have to resolve the jurisdictional question before appearing in the Senate.

It is perhaps more likely that the chief justice would conclude that this motion should be presented to him in his capacity as presiding officer (e.g., after he has appeared and taken the oath). Suppose then that the chief justice, as presiding officer, decides that the Senate lacks jurisdiction. Should this ruling be appealable to the Senate? If the Senate overrules the chief justice, is he obligated to preside over a trial he believes to be constitutionally invalid? These questions have no clear answer and, as far as I know, there is no precedent to provide guidance.

These questions illustrate the difficulty the Senate would face if it attempted to unilaterally dismiss the impeachment (for want of prosecution or for any other reason) without the chief justice’s acquiescence. Notwithstanding the Justice Department’s suggestion to the contrary, the chief justice’s role in an impeachment trial is far more than merely administrative.

One might say that confusing the chief justice with a parliamentarian is almost as bad as confusing him with a groundhog. (Ok, that would be an odd thing to say, but you get the point.).

Posted on

The Justice Department’s “Interesting” Comments on the Chief Justice’s Role in an Impeachment Trial

The Constitution mentions the chief justice for one purpose only, and apparently it is so he can serve as Charlie McCarthy to Liz McDonough’s Edgar Bergen. Or so one would understand from the Department of Justice’s brief in In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials, currently pending before the D.C. Circuit.

Continue reading “The Justice Department’s “Interesting” Comments on the Chief Justice’s Role in an Impeachment Trial”

Posted on

Roger Cramton’s Memorandum Surfaces

Remember the Roger Cramton memorandum we discussed a few months ago? (Of course you do, scarcely a waking moment goes by when you don’t think “I wonder what ever happened with that Roger Cramton memorandum?”). This was one of the memoranda cited by the Office of Legal Counsel in footnote 1 of its opinion declaring that former White House counsel Don McGahn was absolutely immune from having to appear in response to a congressional subpoena.

As we have discussed, OLC’s argument for absolute immunity is based in large part on “precedent” consisting of its own prior statements on the subject. But, as two federal judges have now pointed out, OLC cannot create precedent simply on its own say-so. Last month Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, in her scathing rejection of McGahn’s claim of immunity, that OLC’s initial theory of absolute immunity set forth in the 1971 Rehnquist memorandum “was seemingly formed out of nothing” and “it appears that an endorsement of the principles that OLC espouses would amount to adopting the absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level presidential aides by ipse dixit.” Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379, slip op. at 99, 102 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019); see also Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d 53, 86 (D.D.C. 2008) (rejecting OLC’s opinions on absolute immunity as “conclusory and recursive”). Furthermore, as both Judge Jackson and Judge Bates noted, the original justification for immunity set forth in the Rehnquist memorandum would not apply to former White House officials at all. See McGahn, slip op. at 100; Miers, 558 F. Supp.2d at 88 n. 36.

Enter the aforementioned Cramton memorandum of December 21, 1972 to “the Honorable John W. Dean, III,” Counsel to the President. Although OLC cited this memorandum in its opinion on McGahn, it did not make it public at the time, nor did it bother to mention that this memorandum differed in an important respect from the argument that it was making. We know this now because OLC has just posted it on its website. Hat tip: @kpolantz and @EricColumbus.

To wit, the Cramton memorandum concludes that former White House officials should not be entitled to the same absolute immunity as current officials. It states:

We have one caveat with respect to our conclusion. While we believe that an assertion of Executive privilege with respect to specific testimony on the subject of advice given by the former staff member to the President is entirely proper, we have some reservations about the propriety of invoking the privilege to direct the former staff member not to appear at all. This aspect of the Executive privilege has in the past been claimed only for the President and his most intimate, immediate advisers. One of the justifications that has been advanced for an immediate adviser declining to appear is that he is presumptively available to the President 24 hours a day; the necessity to appear before congressional committees therefore could impair that availability. This consideration would obviously not justify a refusal to appear by a former staff member. However, this justification is in our view neither the only nor the best one. An immediate assistant to the President may be said to serve as his alter ego in implementing Presidential policies. On this theory, the same considerations that were persuasive to former President Truman would apply to justify a refusal to appear by such a former staff member, if the scope of his testimony is to be limited to his activities while serving in that capacity.

In conclusion, we believe that an invocation of the privilege with respect to particular testimony by a former staff member on the subject of advice given the President is quite clearly proper; on the other hand, we believe an invocation of the privilege as a basis for refusal to appear at all is a closer question. An intention to invoke the privilege with respect to particular testimony could certainly be announced. This as a practical matter may solve the problem. If, however, the interrogation is expected to extend to non-privileged matters, a decision that the former staff member should not appear at all would not, in our opinion, be justified.

Memorandum of 12-21-1972 at 6-7 (emphasis added).

To be sure, this language does not foreclose a refusal to appear by a former White House official if the testimony is expected to involve only privileged matters (though it suggests this is a “closer question”). If, on the other hand, non-privileged matters are involved, it indicates that such a refusal would not be justified. This position is inconsistent with OLC’s current stance, which is that former officials are absolutely immune from any questioning about their official activities, regardless whether they are privileged. As OLC “explained” in its McGahn opinion, “the concept of immunity is distinct from, and broader than, the question whether executive privilege would protect a witness’s response to any particular question.” 5-20-19 Opinion at 17. Moreover, it asserted that “consistent with our prior precedents, we find no material distinction between the compelled congressional testimony of current and former senior advisers to the President.” Id. at 16. This again is inconsistent with the Cramton memorandum.

Furthermore, the Cramton memorandum implicitly rejects OLC rationales for extending immunity to former officials. If allowing such officials to testify about non-privileged matters will not impair the president’s ability to obtain confidential advice, there is no reason why they should not appear and invoke the privilege on a question by question basis (like every other executive official outside the White House). Moreover, Cramton obviously did not believe that allowing former officials to appear would adversely impact the president’s “autonomy.”

It seems to me that if you are going to rest an argument on ipse dixit, you ought at least to be honest about the ipse.  Maybe the D.C. Circuit will have some questions about this too.

Posted on

Impeachment and Disqualification

The proposed articles of impeachment against President Trump call not only for his removal from office, but for his “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.” No doubt the drafters of these articles assume such disqualification would prevent Trump from ever again serving as president. Readers of this blog, however, are aware that this is no longer an uncontested proposition (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and, most recently, here for a few of our prior discussions of this issue).

While I am aware that the president’s conviction and removal, much less disqualification, remain unlikely events, if he were to be disqualified it would be extremely important that there be as much clarity as possible on this issue. I have little doubt that should the Senate disqualify Trump from future office, he would not hesitate to seize upon the argument that the presidency does not constitute an “office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States” within the meaning of the Disqualification Clause. Moreover, members of the House who will vote on articles of impeachment and members of the Senate who will presumably vote on conviction and removal, and possibly on disqualification as well, are entitled to know of the existence of this issue.

I therefore propose that before voting on articles of impeachment, the House consider and approve a resolution along the following lines: “Resolved, That in the considered judgment of this House, the Office of President of the United States of America is an Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States within the meaning of the Sixth Clause of the Third Section of the First Article of the Constitution of the United States.”

Posted on

Historical Practice and the Applicability of the Foreign Emoluments Clause to the President

I want to return briefly to the question  whether the president holds an “Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” within the meaning of the Foreign Emoluments Clause (FEC). As far as I know, no judge in any of the three emoluments cases has expressed any support for the theory, pressed by Professors Tillman and Blackman in various amicus briefs, that the president does not hold such an office and therefore is not subject to the FEC. Nonetheless, the argument seems to have gained some traction in the legal academy, enough that Judge Rao, during the Mazars oral argument, referred to a dispute or debate among legal scholars on the subject. For that reason, I think it is worth calling attention to a congressional report that I recently came across which is of some relevance to this debate and which (again, as far as I know) has not been previously mentioned in that connection.

As background, you may recall that a key element of the Tillman/Blackman theory is that early presidents accepted gifts from foreign governments that allegedly would have been proscribed by the FEC if that clause applied to the president. The fact that these presidents accepted such gifts without seeking congressional consent, the argument goes, constitutes compelling evidence of the clause’s original meaning.

One might ask, though, why would this be so? Assuming that presidents accepted gifts otherwise proscribed by the FEC, this could reflect (1) lack of awareness of or attentiveness to the FEC; (2) a deliberate decision to ignore the FEC; or (3) a sincere but mistaken view the FEC did not apply to the presidency. It is not obvious why the facts as described by Tillman and Blackman should be given any particular weight in ascertaining the meaning of the FEC. Cf. Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, v. McGahn, No. 19-cv-2379, slip op. at 98 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019) (“It goes without saying that longevity alone does not transform an unsupported notion into law.”). Continue reading “Historical Practice and the Applicability of the Foreign Emoluments Clause to the President”

Posted on

Subpoenas, Recalcitrant Witnesses, and the Senate Impeachment Trial

Law Twitter is abuzz (I guess this is a mixed metaphor) about this TPM post by Josh Marshall, who makes the following points regarding an impeachment trial in the Senate: (1) the House will have the opportunity to request subpoenas for any witnesses it wishes, including those who refused to appear during the House proceedings (e.g., Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton); (2) the chief justice will likely make a ruling on these requests in the first instance (the Senate could  overrule him, but probably would not); and (3) the courts will not interfere with these subpoenas because the trial of impeachment is solely a matter for the Senate. See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). He therefore posits that the House will have a much better chance of forcing reluctant witnesses to testify in the trial than it has had in the course of its own impeachment inquiry.

I will assume that points 1 and 2 are correct, though it remains to be seen whether the Senate will restrict witnesses up front and whether the chief justice will choose to rule on motions in the first instance or simply refer them to the Senate. But what happens if the House requests that certain witnesses be subpoenaed and these requests are granted by the chief justice and/or the Senate?

As a practical matter, there will be tremendous pressure on the witnesses to comply. It is one thing to defy the authority of the House with the backing of executive branch lawyers who maintain, however implausibly, that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and unconstitutional.  It is quite another to defy a subpoena signed by the chief justice of the United States pursuant to the Senate’s unquestionable constitutional authority to conduct an impeachment trial of the president. It will be particularly difficult for a private citizen like Giuliani, who does not even have the veneer of “absolute immunity” or some other constitutionally based privilege, to justify a refusal to appear. But even a witness who asserts such a privilege would have to consider carefully the possibility of future prosecution for contempt of Congress or other potential consequences (Mulvaney, Bolton and Giuliani are all lawyers, for example, who could be subject to professional discipline).

If, however, a witness chooses to defy the subpoena, matters get more complicated. The fact that the Senate has exclusive jurisdiction over the conduct of an impeachment trial does not, in itself, answer the question of how to force a recalcitrant witness to obey its commands.

Here it is important to distinguish between two distinct powers that the Senate could exercise. The most frequently discussed is the contempt power, which we have been reviewing at some length. But the Senate also has the power to issue a warrant of attachment, which directs the Sergeant at Arms to arrest an individual and bring him before the bar of the Senate to be interrogated. See Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597, 616-20 (1929) (holding that the Senate could use an arrest warrant to bring before it a witness in an elections case); McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 158 (1927) (approving the same procedure in a legislative oversight investigation). The arrest warrant serves as an alternative for witnesses who cannot be relied upon to comply with a subpoena.

If the Senate is willing to employ such process, it seems to me extremely likely that it will be effective. I do not expect that the witnesses in question would  attempt to flee or physically resist the Sergeant at Arms. I certainly would not expect the executive branch to offer physical protection against execution of a warrant signed by the chief justice. Of course, if I am wrong about this, we would be in a true constitutional crisis.

More plausibly, the witnesses could attempt to challenge their arrest through a habeas proceeding. For example, Mulvaney, Bolton or other current or former senior White House advisors could argue that they are absolutely immune from congressional process, even in the context of an impeachment proceeding. I believe that this argument would have a near zero chance of success. In addition to the infirmities of the absolute immunity position which we have previously discussed, the Senate would have a strong argument that the courts lack jurisdiction even to consider the merits of the issue given its exclusive authority over impeachment. And leaving all that aside, it is difficult to imagine a federal district judge interfering with an arrest warrant signed by the chief justice.

The arrest warrant, however, only ensures that the witness’s physical appearance before the Senate. It does not address what happens if the witness still refuses to answer questions or produce documents. In that case, the Senate would have to employ the contempt power in order to force the witness to comply. This would impose substantially greater costs on the Senate. For one thing, it would have to interrupt the impeachment trial to conduct a collateral proceeding in which the witness would be asked to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. For another, if the witness is adjudged guilty of contempt, the Sergeant at Arms would have to keep him in custody until he agrees to testify (or the impeachment trial concludes). There would also be a greater risk of judicial interference if a witness is held for a substantial period of time.

In all likelihood, though, it will not be necessary for the Senate to take things that far. If the Senate subpoenas witnesses requested by the House and indicates that it is serious about enforcement (whether by way of criminal referral or otherwise), I expect those witnesses to appear and answer questions (though there may be some assertions of executive privilege).

Posted on

D.C. Circuit Panel Issues Expedited Briefing Schedule for In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary

Late yesterday the DC Circuit panel hearing In re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, for an Order Authorizing the Release of Certain Grand Jury Materials issued a scheduling order for briefing on the merits. The expedited schedule evidently reflects the compromise that the three judges came up with after yesterday’s argument. The merits will be heard by the same panel (Rogers, Griffith and Rao) which heard the stay application and an administrative stay will remain in place during that time.

The schedule is as follows:

DOJ brief to be filed on December 2, 2019

House brief to be filed on December 16, 2019

DOJ reply brief to be filed on December 23, 2019

Oral argument is on January 3, 2020 at 9:30 am.

Note that the oral argument will take place two and a half hours before the start of the second session of the 116th Congress. Not sure what that means, but I thought it was interesting.

Posted on

Oral Argument: In Re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary

The D.C. Circuit panel (Rogers, Griffith and Rao) heard arguments this morning on whether to stay Chief Judge Howell’s order granting the House Judiciary Committee access to certain grand jury material related to the Mueller report. The three issues discussed were (1) whether the district court erred in holding that impeachment was a “judicial proceeding” within the meaning of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e); (2) whether the committee had made an adequate showing of particularized need with respect to the materials in question; and (3) whether there would be irreparable harm from disclosing the material to the committee. It is hard to say what the panel is likely to do, though my guess is that it will probably not deny a stay outright.

On the first issue, Judge Griffith seemed to believe that existing D.C. Circuit precedent establishes that impeachment is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Rule 6(e), and that only the en banc court would be able to revisit that issue. Although Griffith did not tip his hand as to whether he would ultimately side with the House on the merits of that issue, I did not hear anything in the argument to suggest he had changed his mind on existing precedent. Given that Judge Rogers was clearly sympathetic to the House’s position, this suggests that a majority of the panel is unlikely to grant a stay based on this argument.

Judge Rao questioned whether any court involvement in impeachment would run afoul of Supreme Court precedent that impeachment is solely a question for the Congress. Her theory seemed to be that this precedent prohibited the courts from even assisting the House or Senate in obtaining information for impeachment purposes. Although Judge Griffith expressed some interest in this theory, I think House Counsel Doug Letter did a nice job at the opening of his argument in shooting it down. In any event, I assume that Griffith would view that also as something that would have to be addressed by the en banc court.

The second issue appeared to be stronger for the Justice Department. All three judges had some concerns about whether the district court had adequately determined whether the committee had a particularized need for each piece of grand jury evidence that the court had ordered released. While there was not a clear consensus on how the court should go about that task, it appeared that there was enough uncertainty about it that the court would be reluctant to let the district court’s ruling proceed without further scrutiny.

The Justice Department lawyer, Mark Freeman, also seemed to make some headway on the third issue. While Griffith initially expressed some skepticism that there would be any irreparable harm in allowing the committee to gain access to the grand jury material, Freeman argued that once the material was disclosed, it would be impossible for the courts to enforce any restrictions on what the committee did with it (Letter more or less conceded that this was the case).

Although it is possible that the panel will simply deny the stay, my impression is that this is less likely. Instead, it will probably either grant the stay pending a decision on the merits (which would be heard by a different panel) or itself immediately proceed to address the merits, which would obviate the need for a stay. (The latter possibility was suggested by Letter). If the panel itself reaches the merits, my guess is that it will either affirm Chief Judge Howell’s ruling or remand for more specific findings with regard to the committee’s need for the information in question.

One final possibility was raised by Judge Griffith. He suggested that the problem with regard to controlling further dissemination of the grand jury material could be addressed by limiting access to “counsel” (by which he meant lawyers in the House Counsel’s office). Letter agreed with this suggestion but noted that it would have to include committee counsel as well, as they are the ones with the relevant substantive knowledge regarding what material is relevant to the impeachment inquiry.

This is of course exactly the Freeh-LaBella procedure that I suggested seven months ago (see here and here). Allowing access to a limited number of congressional counsel, who will fully understand that any further disclosure without the court’s permission will subject them to serious sanctions, allows the committee to identify any information for which it has a particularized need without jeopardizing the confidentiality of the information. This approach makes the most sense, which is why it probably won’t happen. But kudos to Judge Griffith, the former senate legal counsel, for proposing a solution that would actually meet the legitimate needs of all three branches.