Oral Arguments in the D.C. Circuit En Banc Consideration of Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn and U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin

[berg80]

On April 28, Justice Department attorneys and attorneys representing the House of Representatives argued by teleconference before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, in two cases concerning Congress’s Article III standing to sue over alleged executive branch illegality: Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn and U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin.

McGahn concerns whether the House of Representatives can go to court to enforce subpoenas compelling testimony from Trump administration officials. The order granting rehearing en banc vacated a three-judge panel decision from February, which held that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the president and Congress over testimony from executive branch officials.

Mnuchin raises similar Article III issues but concerns whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue in district court over the redirection of funding to pay for the U.S.-Mexico border wall. It was also argued before a three-judge panel in February, but the court decided to rehear it en banc along with McGahn before the panel issued its decision. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao—both Trump nominees—recused themselves from both cases.

Oral Arguments in the D.C. Circuit En Banc Consideration of Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn and U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin

Judges were skeptical of the Department of Justice’s sweeping arguments but searched for limiting principles on court cases brought by Congress.

www.lawfareblog.com

..................................................................................................................
Fascinating discussion with quite a lot riding on the court's decision.

 

[ReinyDays]

The first case seems muddy to me ... Article III power is to prevent the Article I and Article II powers from usurping the Constitution, and here we would have an individual suing who had their personal rights violated ... McGahn is clearly a dispute between powers and I think it is for these powers to settle their differences themselves ... Congress can impeach and remove the President ...

The second case is clear cut ... Congress wrote the legislation allowing the President to declare a state of emergency which included all the additional (and "special") powers granted to the President under such a state of emergency ... Congress can't sue in a court of law the very law they wrote and caused to come into being ... 2/3's of each house, and the president no longer has these additional powers ... easy peasy ...

The broader problem in both these cases is Congress and it's lack of ability to do anything ... a complete log-jam ... the President is then left with running the day-to-day affairs of Federal government by Executive Orders, literally despotic management ...