Judge Scraps Manafort Suit Seeking to Restrain Robert Mueller
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, turning down Paul Manafort's civil suit against Robert Mueller, declined to reach the merits of the legitimacy of his appointment order leading the Russia investigation.
April 27, 2018 at 12:50 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Photo by Diego M. Radzinschi/THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL
A federal judge on Friday dismissed former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's lawsuit challenging special counsel Robert Mueller's power, ruling that his civil case was not the “appropriate vehicle for taking issue with what a prosecutor has done in the past or where he might be headed in the future.”
Manafort sued the U.S. Department of Justice in January, arguing that the special counsel had gone beyond its mandate of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election by probing his overseas lobbying work. The lawsuit, filed in Washington federal district court, came three months after Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates were indicted on criminal charges related to their past lobbying work for Ukraine.
Manafort's defense lawyers narrowed their civil complaint to ask U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia to enjoin any future actions under Mueller's appointment order leading the Russia investigation. That narrowing wasn't enough for the judge.
“It is a sound and well-established principle that a court should not exercise its equitable powers to interfere with or enjoin an ongoing criminal investigation when the defendant will have the opportunity to challenge any defects in the prosecution in the trial or on direct appeal,” Jackson wrote on Friday. “Therefore, the court finds that this civil complaint must be dismissed.”
Jackson did not reach the merits of Manafort's claim about the legitimacy of Mueller's appointment, saying that any such attack could be addressed in Manafort's criminal cases. Jackson said Manafort has an “adequate remedy at law in the form of his pending motions to dismiss or future motions to dismiss.”
Jackson's decision was not unexpected. She appeared skeptical of Manafort's challenge during a hearing earlier this month in Washington federal court. Manafort defense lawyer, Kevin Downing, a former Miller & Chevalier partner, argued during that hearing that an injunction was necessary to guard against the possibility of future prosecutions in additional jurisdictions. “Chasing indictment after indictment is not an adequate remedy,” Downing said.
The hearing came just days after Mueller's team defended its authority by releasing a copy, with portions blacked-out, of a classified Justice Department memorandum issued in August 2017.
In the memo, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein specifically stated that it was within the special counsel's scope to investigate payments Manafort received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of the country's Russia-backed former president, Viktor Yanukovych.
Rosenstein took over the special counsel investigation last year after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from matters related to the President Donald Trump campaign. In recent weeks, speculation has swirled about whether that recusal extends to the Justice Department's investigation into payments Trump's longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to two women who claim to have had affairs with the president.
Appearing before a Senate panel on Wednesday, Sessions deflected questions about whether he had recused himself from the investigation of Cohen, saying he had “given it some thought” and determined Justice Department policy prohibited him from answering definitively.
Jackson's opinion is posted in full below:
Read more:
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 AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Travis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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