DOJ Lawyer Stands Up Dems—and Puts Obscure House Rule in Spotlight
The Justice Department's targeting of what was once an obscure House rule reflects the ratcheting-up of resistance, former U.S. House lawyers said.
April 25, 2019 at 05:35 PM
8 minute read
Shortly before 9 a.m. Thursday, Steve Castor strolled up to a House Oversight and Reform Committee office and greeted the reporters and photographers staking out a deposition that was not to be.
“Nobody's coming today,” said Castor, a top Republican lawyer on the committee. Within a half hour, he left. The absence of Justice Department attorney John Gore was noted—and not at all surprising.
Committee investigators had hoped to question Gore, a top official in the Justice Department's civil rights division, about the Trump administration's push to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. But on the eve of the deposition, the Justice Department's top congressional liaison told the committee that U.S. Attorney General William Barr had directed Gore not to appear, deepening the Trump administration's defiance of House subpoenas and other demands for information that President Donald Trump has decried as partisan.
With that letter, the Justice Department also highlighted an arcane House rule that has been featured prominently in the Trump administration's clash with Congress: the prohibition on administration lawyers sitting in on depositions of government officials.
That rule, in place for the past decade under Democratic and Republican majorities alike, allows government officials to have personal counsel accompany them in depositions but broadly shuts agency lawyers out of the room. It was left untouched as House Democrats, regaining the gavel in January, changed other deposition rules in preparation for an aggressive stretch of investigations.
In interviews, former House lawyers said the rule is intended to put government officials at ease during depositions, freeing them from fears that a lawyer from their agency will report back about their testimony. Also, they said, the rule removes from the deposition room a government minder who might disrupt the questioning of an agency official.
“We don't want the agency or department there looking over their shoulder, perhaps in some way chilling the honesty or the openness of the witness,” said King & Spalding partner Thomas J. Spulak, who served as House general counsel in the mid-1990s. “It makes sense, and that's the way it should be.”
Within the past week, the Trump administration has taken a different view.
In his letter to the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Wednesday, Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd objected to the House's refusal to allow a Justice Department attorney to attend Gore's deposition, writing that the “exclusion of agency counsel from a compelled deposition would unconstitutionally infringe upon the prerogatives of the executive branch.”
“We are disappointed that the committee remains unwilling to permit department counsel to represent the interests of the executive branch in the deposition of a senior department official,” wrote Boyd, the head of the Justice Department's office of legislative affairs.
In the aftermath of the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's report—a 448-page document detailing the Russia investigation that drew from the notes and testimony of Trump aides to paint an unflattering picture of the White House—the president has taken an increasingly pugnacious tone toward House Democrats. On Wednesday, Trump proclaimed that his administration would be “fighting all the subpoenas” because he considered them politically motivated.
The Justice Department's targeting of what was once an obscure House rule reflects the ratcheting-up of that resistance, former House lawyers said.
“I think it's just indicative of the difficult state of relations between the House and the White House in this environment. They are fighting over things that, in the past, were probably more likely to be resolved through mutual accommodation and negotiation,” said Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Thomas Hungar, who stepped down as House general counsel in January after nearly three years in the role.
In recent years, under a Republican majority, officials have sat for depositions without counsel from their agencies in the room, said Sam Dewey, a former senior counsel on the House Financial Services Committee who previously served as chief investigator for the Senate's special committee on aging.
“What you would do is you would have the agency counsel literally sitting in the conference room next door, and if they needed to consult, they'd go consult. Or you'd take a break every hour and they'd go consult,” said Dewey, now counsel at McDermott Will & Emery.
Boyd's letter Wednesday drew a rebuke from the House Oversight and Reform Committee's chairman, U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, who noted Trump's recent statement that he was opposed to current and former White House officials testifying before Congress. In refusing to allow Gore to be deposed, Cummings said, “the Trump administration went even further by expanding this policy to employees at federal agencies.”
Gore was not the first administration official to stand up the House Oversight Committee this week.
On Tuesday, the former White House personnel security director, Carl Kline, skipped a deposition scheduled as part of the committee's probe into whether the Trump administration mishandled the security clearance process for top officials.
In advance of the deposition, Kline's personal attorney, McGlinchey Stafford partner Robert Driscoll, relayed the administration's view that he should not sit for questioning unless a White House lawyer was allowed to attend. White House counsel Pat Cipollone had previously informed the committee that Kline would not appear unless a lawyer from the White House counsel's office was allowed “to appear with Mr. Kline in order to preserve and protect executive branch confidentiality interests.”
The scheduling of the Gore and Kline depositions marked an escalation of tensions between the House and Trump administration. Under calmer conditions, the House committee questions government officials not in a deposition but rather in a so-called transcribed interview, a format that allows agency lawyers to attend.
“Often, the fact is that if it's an executive branch official, they will end up appearing voluntarily rather than through a subpoena. And with a transcribed interview, the rules are more lax and flexible,” Hungar said.
The House Oversight Committee held such an interview with Gore in March. In a letter to Barr earlier this month, Cummings said Gore “refused to answer more than 150 questions at the direction of department counsel.”
“After the interview,” Cummings added, “as an accommodation, committee staff identified 18 key questions that Mr. Gore had refused to answer and invited him to return voluntarily to address that narrow set of questions. The department refused to make him available, which made the subpoena necessary.”
Gore's personal lawyer, McGuireWoods partner John D. Adams, wrote in a letter to the committee Wednesday that Gore had answered more than 500 questions during the March 7 interview. The impasse between the committee and the Justice Department, Adams said, put Gore in an “intractable bind.”
“He is happy to continue to cooperate with appropriate requests from the committee, as he has on multiple occasions in this matter,” Adams wrote. “But he is not willing to ignore the attorney general of the United States.”
The House Oversight Committee moved Tuesday to hold Kline in contempt and could take a similar step with Gore, a step that could set the stage for the deposition dispute to reach a federal court.
“As an officer of the court and a senior lawyer in a position of public trust at the Department of Justice, Mr. Gore should be well aware of his constitutional, legal and ethical obligations to comply with a duly authorized subpoena from Congress,” Cummings said Wednesday. “Those obligations have not been erased by the attorney general or the president.”
|Read more:
US House Democrats Just Made It Easier for Investigators to Depose Witnesses
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 AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Pa. Hospital Agrees to $16M Settlement Following High Schooler's Improper Discharge
- 2Connecticut Movers: Year-End Promotions, Hires and an Office Opening
- 3Luigi Mangione Defense Attorney Says NYC Mayor’s Comments on Case Raise Fair Trial Concerns
- 4Revisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
- 5Hochul Vetoes 'Grieving Families' Bill, Faulting a Lack of Changes to Suit Her Concerns
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