Appeals court rules against Trump, says House can sue to enforce McGahn subpoena
Source: The Hill
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the House's subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn, ruling that Congress has the right to enforce its subpoenas in court.
The 7-2 decision from the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses an earlier ruling from a divided three-judge panel that declared that congressional subpoenas were essentially unenforceable.
"The Constitution charges Congress with certain responsibilities, including to legislate, to conduct oversight of the federal government, and, when necessary, to impeach and remove a President or other Executive Branch official from office," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the majority opinion. "Possession of relevant information is an essential precondition to the effective discharge of all of those duties."
Although the ruling is a clear victory for congressional Democrats, it does not mean that McGahn will be sitting for testimony anytime soon. The majority decision did not address the Trump administration's claim that White House officials are immune to congressional subpoena, so even if McGahn does not appeal the ruling, the two sides will still have more to litigate before the D.C. Circuit.
Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/511027-appeals-court-revives-houses-mcgahn-subpoena
maxsolomon
(33,249 posts)Justice delayed is Justice denied.
bucolic_frolic
(43,058 posts)If you can't enforce a subpoena, you can just escape liability and responsibility for everything by outsourcing everyone and everything. It would mean the end of accountability. It's so good corporations would adopt it, hell they'd lobby for it.
BumRushDaShow
(128,490 posts)before the grant of an en banc decision by the entire court.
By Spencer S. Hsu
March 13, 2020 at 6:45 p.m. EDT
/snip
In McGahns case, a split three-judge panel agreed with the Justice Department argument that courts should stay out of political disputes between the two elected branches of government.
Writing for the majority, Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote that courts cannot decide this case without declaring the actions of one or the other unconstitutional, and occasions for constitutional confrontation should be avoided whenever possible.?
/snip
The third judge on the panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, agreed with Griffiths overall judgment but rejected a Trump administration claim that top White House aides enjoy absolute immunity from compelled testimony.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/full-appeals-court-to-rehear-donald-mcgahn-subpoena-and-trump-border-wall-cases/2020/03/13/3ac324d4-656c-11ea-acca-80c22bbee96f_story.html
By The Associated Press
Aug. 7, 2020
Updated 12:12 p.m. ET
/snip
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 7-2 in ruling that the House Judiciary Committee can make its claims in court, reversing the judgment of a three-judge panel that would have ended the court fight.
The matter now returns to the panel for consideration of other legal issues. The current House of Representatives session ends on Jan. 3. That time crunch means the chances that the Committee hears McGahns testimony anytime soon are vanishingly slim," dissenting Judge Thomas Griffith wrote. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson also dissented.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/07/us/politics/ap-us-trump-mcgahn-subpoena.html
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Karma13612
(4,541 posts)Im going to wait until tomorrow to swallow the full truth that involves more litigation before McGahn will be able to speak.
Sigh, it never ends.
The entire enlightened population in the US is in a constant state of unrequited justice.
I was happy about the NRA news yesterday, but we know the whole thing will just fade away and has zero impact on the election. Unless money is frozen that was meant to flow to Republican campaigns?