Judge Reggie Walton Is Fired Up (Again) in McCabe-Related FOIA Suit
"I'm becoming really concerned about the American public having faith in our institutions," U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said Thursday in court in a public-records case.
January 23, 2020 at 03:24 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Washington aired broad concerns Thursday about diminishing confidence in government institutions as he grappled with secrecy surrounding the firing and criminal investigation of Andrew McCabe, a former FBI leader who was terminated in 2018 following an internal inquiry into his contacts with the news media.
During an hourlong hearing, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton weighed releasing transcripts of three closed-door discussions he had with Justice Department lawyers last year in a Freedom of Information Act case seeking records related to McCabe's termination. In those private discussions, held between July and September, Justice Department lawyers argued that records concerning McCabe's firing should be withheld because they related to an ongoing law enforcement proceeding.
The Justice Department backed off that argument in November, prompting Walton to question whether he had been "manipulated" for months into stalling public release of public records.
Walton, speaking in court Thursday, described the public interest in McCabe's firing as "significant" and "tremendous," while also raising concerns that keeping the public "in the dark" about the termination of a top FBI official risked undermining the bureau.
"I'm becoming really concerned about the American public having faith in our institutions," Walton said.
"I don't want to see the court dragged down into that concern," he added, voicing worries that the court could be seen as "complicit" in the government's drive to keep certain documents under wraps.
Walton's remarks came in a case filed by the watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, which sued in July 2018 for records related to McCabe's firing.
The case has played out against the backdrop of a criminal investigation into whether McCabe misled federal agents about his role in providing a Wall Street Journal reporter with information in 2016 about the FBI's probe into the Clinton Foundation.
Last year, a grand jury convened to consider the case against McCabe without issuing an indictment, but the Justice Department has given no public indication that it has abandoned the investigation. McCabe, represented by lawyers from Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, in August sued the Justice Department alleging retaliation. The government is opposing his claims.
On Thursday, Anne Weismann, a lawyer for CREW, said the threat of criminal prosecution "continues to hang over Mr. McCabe's head."
As he has presided over the public records case, Walton has voiced frustration with the Justice Department's drawn-out criminal investigation into McCabe, saying the probe has left the former deputy FBI director in "limbo." On Thursday, he said there was "a lot of suspicion among the American people about what the heck the government is doing."
Walton and Justice Department lawyer Justin Sandberg avoided giving any clear indication of the status of the investigation into McCabe. Walton said the private discussions with the Justice Department last year did not provide him with information about why the McCabe investigation is in the "state that it's in at this current time."
Sandberg argued for only a limited release of the transcripts, saying the information divulged in them should be strictly relevant to the open records lawsuit and not address how the Justice Department is "handling an enforcement proceeding." It is not the court's role in the case, he said, to "pass judgment" on the operation of the Justice Department.
"That's not what's at issue in this case," Sandberg said.
Walton said he would review the transcripts to evaluate what should be redacted. Before adjourning, he reiterated that the court needed to be viewed as a "neutral arbiter."
"I have real concerns," he said, "because if the American public loses faith in the judicial process, we're in trouble."
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 AllDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readTrump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
Trump-Appointed Judge Presides Over NASCAR Antitrust Dispute Under Case Reassignment
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Increased Costs Proved a Drag on Profits for PA's AmLaw 200 in 2024
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-81
- 3Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 4'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 5FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
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