DC Circuit Judges Rao, Griffith and Rogers Will Weigh Release of Mueller Grand Jury Materials
Two Republican-appointed judges and one Democratic appointee will oversee the appeal.
November 07, 2019 at 04:16 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Updated on Nov. 8
A federal appeals court in Washington has set a Nov. 18 hearing to consider a trial judge's order validating the House's impeachment inquiry and requiring the U.S. Justice Department to disclose now-secret grand jury materials that were part of the special counsel's Russia investigation.
Two Republican-appointed judges—Neomi Rao and Thomas Griffith—and one Democratic appointee, Judith Rogers, will preside at Tuesday's hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Rao, appointed by President Donald Trump, last month voted in dissent against House Democrats in a dispute over a subpoena that was issued to Trump's longtime accounting firm for copies of his financial records.
Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia issued a 75-page ruling Oct. 25 siding with the House Judiciary Committee in its quest to obtain the full findings of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller III, who in March concluded his two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. In his summary of his office's findings, Mueller reported that he uncovered no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin, but he documented several episodes of possible efforts by the president to obstruct the investigation.
Howell, who as chief judge presides over grand jury matters in Washington federal court, cited the public's substantial interest in the Mueller probe in ruling for the House Judiciary Committee. She rejected Main Justice's claim that the redacted portions should remain secret due to ongoing criminal cases stemming from Mueller's probe.
With limited exception, grand jury material is shielded from the public. One exception allows judges to release grand jury information "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." Howell spurned the Justice Department's argument that the House's ongoing impeachment inquiry and would-be impeachment trial in the Senate do not amount to a "judicial proceeding."
"Contrary to DOJ's position—and as historical practice, the Federalist Papers, the text of the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent all make clear—impeachment trials are judicial in nature and constitute judicial proceedings," Howell wrote in her order.
The D.C. Circuit's order Wednesday allotted 15 minutes of argument time for the House and for the Justice Department. Neither side has yet said who will argue in the appeals court, where an array of Trump-related cases have been resolved or are pending.
The full appeals court is weighing whether to rehear its 2-1 ruling that Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, must respond to a House subpoena seeking Trump financial records. The appeals court is also considering whether the House Oversight Committee can get access to documents about Trump's downtown D.C. hotel. Trump has faced scrutiny over whether profits from his vast business empire violate the Constitution's ban on presidents receiving "emoluments," or gifts.
Rogers and Griffith are veterans of the D.C. Circuit. Rogers has served since the Clinton administration, and Griffith since the George W. Bush administration. All three judges—Rao, Rogers and Griffth—are fairly active on the bench at oral arguments, engaging often with the lawyers appearing before them.
The judges' ruling in the dispute over Mueller grand jury materials ultimately, like any case, could go before the full bench, or be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices haven't yet had occasion to rule on any impeachment-related disputes, or any dispute involving Trump's financial records.
Read more:
Trump Can't Block NY Grand Jury Subpoena Seeking Tax Records: 2nd Circuit
|The court on Friday rescheduled oral argument to Nov. 18.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Jury Says $118M: Netlist Wins Another Patent Verdict Against Samsung
- 2Big Law Media Law Attorneys Brace For Changes Under Trump and Carr’s FCC
- 3Will England Accept that Digital Assets Are ‘Property’?
- 4Congress and Courts Are Considering Litigation Financing: Is Disclosure Imminent?
- 5Bar Report — Nov. 25, 2024
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250