DOJ Pushes Back on Claims Mueller's Probe Is Out of Control
A D.C. Circuit panel heard arguments challenging the special counsel's appointment, brought by Andrew Miller, a former aide to Trump confidant Roger Stone.
November 08, 2018 at 03:09 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
In oral argument before a D.C. Circuit panel Thursday afternoon, a U.S. lawyer from the special counseI's office issued a defense of Robert Mueller III's probe, fighting assertions that it's an uncontrolled investigation.
“It is not the case that the special counsel is wandering in a free floating environment and can decide” when to report to the acting attorney general, appellate lawyer Michael Dreeben said.
His defense came as a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments in a case challenging Mueller's appointment, brought by Andrew Miller, a former aide to Trump confidant Roger Stone. Attorney Paul Kamenar, who is representing Miller, has argued in part that Mueller's May 2017 appointment violated the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution, contending that the special counsel is a principal, not an inferior, officer under the clause, which would have required a presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.
“Because of his extraordinary powers as a prosecutor, coupled with the lack of supervision and control over this conduct, the Special Counsel, like U.S. Attorneys, was required to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate,” Kamenar wrote in a brief for the appeal.
On Thursday, Kamenar cast Mueller as a prosecutor with “extraordinary” power and little supervision at the Department of Justice, describing him as “like a U.S. attorney at large.”
The D.C. Circuit panel that heard Thursday's case included Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith Rogers and Sri Srinivasan. Henderson is a George H.W. Bush appointee. Rogers was appointed to the court by Bill Clinton, and Srinivasan by Barack Obama.
Srinivasan did not appear ready to take up Kamenar's position, pressing him to differentiate Thursday's case from Morrison v. Olson and a D.C. Circuit case, where courts have found that officials “with many of the same attributes” were still considered inferior officers.
Rogers asked Kamenar how he arrived at the conclusion that Mueller operated without supervision, noting that the way she read the record, “we just don't know what's going on.”
The arguments were held a day after the abrupt resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, submitted at the White House's request. President Donald Trump named Matthew Whitaker, Sessions' chief of staff, to fill in as acting attorney general.
At the beginning of Thursday's session, Henderson instructed attorneys to argue as if the session were taking place before the previous day's “events.” She indicated the court would likely ask attorneys for supplemental briefing.
Thursday's case arose out of a grand jury subpoena fight involving Miller, who had sought to quash a subpoena that the special counsel's office had served against him earlier this year. Miller has so far refused to comply—he was held in contempt of court this summer—instead focusing on challenging the legitimacy of Mueller's appointment. The special counsel's office has sought to interview Stone's associates as it examines possible links between the ex-Trump adviser and the group WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.
There have been multiple efforts to challenge Mueller's appointment on legal and constitutional grounds. None has succeeded.
Most recently, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, appointed to the Washington, D.C., federal trial court by Trump, rejected a challenge to Mueller's appointment brought by Concord Management and Consulting, a Russian troll farm that was indicted earlier this year.
Reed Smith attorney James Martin represented the Russian company, an amicus curiae in the Miller case, during oral argument Thursday. He argued there was no statutory authority that allowed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint Mueller, because Mueller was a private lawyer at the time of his appointment.
Even so, Kamenar has already indicated he and Miller expect to lose their case before the appeals court. He told a radio show that the D.C. Circuit was full of liberals, and that they're ultimately eyeing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they believe they'll find more a favorable reception.
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
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