Mazars Subpoena Destined for Supreme Court as DC Circuit Rejects Trump on Rehearing
Three judges—Neomi Rao, Gregory Katsas and Karen Henderson—said they would have granted the petition for en banc rehearing.
November 13, 2019 at 07:39 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday rejected President Donald Trump's request for an en banc rehearing of the case challenging a congressional subpoena to his personal accounting firm Mazars, sending the case on a direct path to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a per curiam order, the circuit court said a majority of the judges were against an en banc rehearing of the case. Three judges—Neomi Rao, Gregory Katsas and Karen Henderson—said they would have granted the petition for rehearing.
This means that two cases relating to the president are now prepared to go to the Supreme Court after Trump's lawyers said they will go to the high court over whether Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance can obtain Trump's state tax returns.
This will be the first case over the congressional subpoenas issued for Trump's records to go to the Supreme Court. And it will land in the justices' hands on the backdrop of the House's current impeachment inquiry into Trump.
The Supreme Court has long been the target of Trump's attorneys, which include Consovoy McCarthy lawyer William Consovoy and former White House lawyer Stefan Passantino, now with Michael Best & Friedrich.
In a ruling last month, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of upholding the subpoena. Rao was one of the judges on the panel, and authored a dissenting opinion against the subpoena. She wrote at the time that the subpoena needed to fall under the scope of an impeachment investigation, which was not occurring at the time the subpoena was issued.
In her dissenting opinion issued Wednesday, Rao said the Mazars case should be reheard en banc for "the reasons expressed in my dissent to the panel opinion."
"Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within the legislative power because impeachment is a separate judicial power vested in Congress," Rao wrote. "The panel's analysis of these issues misapprehends the gravamen of the committee's subpoena and glosses over the difficult questions it raises for the separation of powers."
Rao said the House's current impeachment inquiry doesn't necessarily resolve the issues she identified with the subpoena, because the subpoena was not initially part of that inquiry. The judge wrote that a House resolution passed after the subpoena was issued may have addressed those flaws, but noted that the D.C. Circuit "has not determined whether a defective subpoena can be revived by after-the-fact approval."
In a separate dissent, Katsas wrote the case "presents exceptionally important questions regarding the separation of powers among Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary."
And he said that, under the argument made by the majority panel in upholding the subpoena, it could "create an open season on the president's personal records."
"This threat to presidential autonomy and independence is far greater than that presented by compulsory process issued by prosecutors in criminal cases, as in United States v. Nixon, or even by private plaintiffs in civil cases, as in Clinton v. Jones," Katsas wrote.
Henderson joined on both Katsas and Rao's dissenting opinions.
Read the order:
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 AllDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
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