DOJ Says White House Can Block Don McGahn's Congressional Testimony
The release of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel's 15-page opinion came as the White House for a second time instructed McGahn, now a Jones Day partner, to defy a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
May 20, 2019 at 04:29 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Justice Department said Monday that President Donald Trump could block former White House Counsel Donald McGahn from complying with a congressional subpoena demanding his testimony related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's investigation.
The release of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel's 15-page opinion came as the White House for a second time instructed McGahn, now a Jones Day partner, to defy a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, escalating a standoff between the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers. The judiciary committee had subpoenaed McGahn to appear in a Tuesday morning hearing.
Read the opinion here:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
“We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisers to testify about their official duties,” Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel said in the Monday opinion. “This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President's independence from Congress.”
The OLC pointed to the office's previous guidance, including one 1999 opinion published during the Bill Clinton administration, that explained that a congressional subpoena requiring a senior presidential adviser to testify would be “akin to” requiring the president himself to appear.
OLC argued that a former White House Counsel fits the description of a senior adviser.
The opinion also rejected arguments from Nadler and other Democratic lawmakers that the White House's decision to not assert executive privilege over Mueller's report amounted to a waiver of privilege over McGahn's communications with Trump.
While the opinion said Congress cannot compel McGahn to testify before lawmakers, it does not necessarily bar McGahn from voluntarily speaking to Congress as a private citizen.
McGahn's attorney, William Burck of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, informed Nadler in a letter Monday that his client would not appear before lawmakers. Burck's letter said McGahn was following the White House's instruction, consistent with the OLC opinion.
“Under these circumstances, and also conscious of the duties he, as an attorney, owes to his former client, Mr. McGahn must decline to appear at the hearing tomorrow,” the letter, obtained by the National Law Journal, said.
Burck also noted Nadler's earlier threat to potentially hold McGahn in contempt for defying the subpoena. “While we disagree with the Committee's position and hope it will instead seek an accommodation with the White House, Mr. McGahn also must honor his ethical and legal obligations as a former senior lawyer and senior advisor to the President. In short, it is our view that the Committee's dispute is not with Mr. McGahn but with the White House,” Burck said.
Nadler slammed the White House in a statement Monday, describing its move Monday as the “latest act of obstruction from the White House that includes its blanket refusal to cooperate with this Committee.” His statement also noted that a federal court previously rejected similar arguments advanced by the George W. Bush White House in a case dealing with a congressional subpoena for former White House counsel Harriet Miers' testimony.
McGahn had earlier refused to comply with the earlier House Judiciary Committee subpoena, which also sought records related to his cooperation with the special counsel. Burck said at the time he was deferring to the instructions of the White House.
Burck did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
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 AllLitigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
'Vision': Judge David Tatel on the Value of Oral Argument and Reading Drafts Aloud
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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