'What Does Checks and Balances Mean?': Judge Frustrated by DOJ Arguments Against McGahn Testimony
At times, Jackson's voice rose and seemed to express frustration as she took issue with the claim that McGahn couldn't be sued in his capacity as a former executive branch official, because of the protections offered to those in the branch.
October 31, 2019 at 07:45 PM
5 minute read
A federal judge in District of Columbia repeatedly evinced exasperation with the U.S. Justice Department's arguments that former White House counsel Don McGahn can't comply with a subpoena for his testimony as part of the House's impeachment inquiry, questioning when the federal government believed former officials could speak about their experiences working for the executive branch.
U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia on Thursday trained her focus on Justice Department deputy assistant attorney James Burnham's arguments that the House could not go to court to enforce the subpoena, and that neither current or former top White House aides could be made to testify before Congress.
The House Judiciary Committee filed its lawsuit over McGahn's testimony earlier this year, and at the time characterized the need for the former White House counsel to publicly speak about potential obstruction of justice by as key to the panel's decision on "whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President."
McGahn has refused to comply with a subpoena for his testimony at the direction of the White House.
For two hours, Jackson solely heard arguments about whether or not the court could intervene in the case. She signaled throughout that she believed it was proper for the House to go to court to enforce a subpoena.
At times, Jackson's voice rose and seemed to express frustration as she took issue with the claim that McGahn couldn't be sued in his capacity as a former executive branch official because of the protections offered to those in the branch.
She pointed out that former officials regularly speak publicly about their prior experiences working in the White House or other agencies, including during media appearances.
"The House is suing Mr. McGahn in his capacity as a former executive branch official," Jackson said. "Doesn't that sweep so broadly that, for the rest of Mr. McGahn's life, anyone who wants to ask him about his role as a former executive branch official" would be impacted by those same privilege issues.
And she pushed DOJ on why the House can't go to court to enforce a subpoena, the way private parties often do during typical court proceedings.
"So what does checks and balances mean?" Jackson asked at one point. "How can the legislative actually exercise oversight with respect to the executive, unless it has some ability to enforce its inquiries" on information?
And later she asked Burnham if DOJ's position is that "there is no circumstance under which the House" could ever come to court.
"As a general proposition, I think that's correct," Burnham said.
U.S. House of Representatives Associate General Counsel Megan Barbero argued that the House had the right to access the information McGahn has to offer about the potential acts of obstruction of justice as laid out in the Mueller report.
Jackson asked Barbero about DOJ's argument that there is enough information in the Mueller report to inform the committee's actions. Barbero said lawmakers need a chance to ask McGahn follow-up questions and cross-examine him as a witness.
"The president has disputed Mr. McGahn's account and has discredited him," Barbero said, which means the House needs to question the former White House lawyer further.
Later in the hearing, Burnham argued that the case centers on a dispute between the House and the executive branch because the right to assert absolute immunity laid with the president.
He said that meant privilege issues still applied to McGahn, even though the attorney has left the White House.
"It seems odd to me that it survives your existence" at the White House, Jackson said at one point, sounded frustrated.
Burnham at one point seemed to acknowledge that he could be facing an uphill battle in Jackson's court.
"If you don't think the president has absolute immunity, that's going to be a serious problem for my argument," he said at one point.
"I don't know if that's the case," Jackson replied, adding that she was trying to further understand the Justice Department's argument.
House general counsel Douglas Letter said the arguments the White House could generally deploy in saying McGahn can't testify, like it impacting his ability to do his job, don't apply because McGahn is now a private citizen.
"He's in private practice of law, earning a profit," Letter said of McGahn, now a partner at Jones Day. "Obviously he can take some time to respond to subpoenas issued by the House."
When Letter referenced the House's impeachment inquiry as further reason that McGahn needs to testify, Brown asked how that applies to this case, as the inquiry wasn't formally announced until after this lawsuit was filed.
Letter said the Judiciary Committee was considering impeachment at the time the complaint was filed. And he pointed to the Office of Legal Counsel opinion against the indictment of a sitting president as backing his argument.
"How can the Trump administration, on the one hand, say you can't criminally prosecute" a sitting president, Letter said, "but when you try to come up with the evidence to see whether you can impeach him or not, we're going to stonewall you."
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 All'Parting Shot': SEC Issues Wells Notice to Immutable Ahead of US Election
3 minute readDapper Labs $4M Settlement, $1.3M in Attorney Fees Reveal NFT Settlement Trend
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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