DC Circuit Gives DOJ Breathing Room on Turning Over Mueller Grand Jury Info
U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl Howell had ordered the grand jury materials be turned over to the House Judiciary Committee by Oct. 30.
October 29, 2019 at 07:59 PM
4 minute read
A three judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday granted an administrative stay on a district court order requiring the release of grand jury information from the Mueller report to House Democrats.
In a one-page order, Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins granted an administrative stay as they consider the Department of Justice's motion for an emergency stay, hours before U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl Howell's order on the release of materials would have gone into effect.
"The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the motion," the order states, "and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion."
Department of Justice attorneys first asked for the stay Monday, days after Howell ruled the agency must hand over grand jury material redacted from special counsel Robert Mueller's report to the House Judiciary Committee by Oct. 30.
In the filing in Howell's court, the government attorneys argued they would be "irreparably harmed" if they had to give the grand jury information to the House committee without having a chance to appeal the case to the D.C. Circuit.
And they claimed that the information detailed in the Mueller report "is not the current focus of impeachment inquiry."
DOJ lawyers repeated that argument in another filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit later Monday. They asked that court to grant them a stay as they prepare to appeal Howell's ruling, or "enter an administrative stay, or continue such a stay, for a reasonable period to allow the Solicitor General an opportunity to seek relief from the Supreme Court."
House attorneys, who have argued the grand jury information is crucial in determining whether to approve articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, swatted back in a court filing Tuesday.
"DOJ is wrong about the scope of the House's inquiry: as the Committee confirmed at oral argument, 'it's not just Ukraine that's the focus,'" House attorneys wrote.
And they argued that further delaying their access to the information "would impair the public's interest in an efficient, fair impeachment process based on all of the relevant evidence."
The motion for a stay will now be briefed further in the D.C. Circuit, but on a tight timeline. The judges asked the House to file a response to a motion by Friday, and DOJ to offer any reply by the following Tuesday.
Howell, in a ruling last week, rejected DOJ's argument that the impeachment inquiry was not a judicial proceeding and that it could not be accepted as legitimate because the House hadn't voted to authorize the proceedings.
"The need for continued secrecy is minimal and thus easily outweighed by [House Judiciary Committee's] compelling need for the material," Howell wrote. "Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public's interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the president described in the Mueller Report."
House Democrats have seized on Howell's ruling to rebuke Republican claims that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate.
Democrats on Tuesday also introduced a resolution on how their impeachment inquiry will be conducted as it goes public, including the release of certain evidence and how lawmakers can question witnesses during televised hearings.
Among other items in the resolution, it allows for the chair and ranking members of the House Intelligence Committee—Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff and GOP Rep. Devin Nunes—to tap committee counsel to question witnesses for up to 90 minutes at the start of a hearing. That time is to be divided evenly between the two members.
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 AllBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
'Even Playing Field?' Wiley Rein Intervenes in Federal Election Campaign Spending Row
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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