Supreme Court Refuses to Shield Mystery Foreign Company From Mueller’s Investigation
January 9, 2019
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to block a subpoena issued to an unnamed corporation, owned by a foreign government, ending a mystery dispute in the courts reportedly involving the investigation into Russian election meddling.
The outcome is believed to be a victory for special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is seeking to learn about the flow of foreign money that may have played a role in the 2016 campaign.
But most of the details of the dispute, including the name of the foreign country, remain unknown.
Like other federal investigations, Mueller presented evidence to a grand jury, and by law, the proceedings of the grand jury are kept secret to shield people who are innocent of wrongdoing.
Sometimes people or companies object to providing testimony or documents to the grand jury, and if so, they can appeal to a federal judge. These proceedings, too, are kept secret.
A federal judge in Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals here refused to quash the subpoena. The mystery company filed an appeal under seal with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. It was the rare case in which the legal issues — and even the party to the case — were not revealed.
The Washington Post, CNN and others have reported that the subpoena was issued by the grand jury that has been reviewing evidence in the Russia investigation.
Lawyers who had followed the dispute speculated that the foreign company could have argued that federal law provides legal immunity for foreign nations. However, that immunity can be waived if the entity does business in the United States.
Last month, Roberts granted a temporary stay to the foreign firm, signaling the court may be willing to take up its claims.
But on Tuesday, the court issued a brief order titled “In Re Grand Jury subpoena.”
“The application for stay, presented to the chief justice and by him referred to the court, is denied. The administrative stay previously entered by the chief justice is vacated,” it said. This returns the case to the federal court and allows Mueller to enforce the subpoena.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, said he wasn’t surprised that Mueller’s office refused to give up the legal scuffle.
“Prosecutors don’t usually abandon subpoena fights,” he said.
It’s unclear how important the subpoena will be. “You can’t say this is the holy grail of the special counsel investigation,” Turley said. But it “reinforces the view that Mueller is diving deeply into potential financial crimes.”
The secrecy is not surprising, he added. “It’s not as unusual as people may think,” he said. “The court does not want to compromise a grand jury investigation.”
©2019 Los Angeles Times
Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
In The News
In its long history, the Supreme Court likely hasn't had a term quite like this one. It began with the emotionally wrenching confirmation hearings for Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and will end with a series of rulings that could have dramatic repercussions on the politics and... Read More
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal involving both the 18th century pirate Blackbeard and the question of whether a state can be sued for using another's copyrighted work without permission. At the center of the case are images of the remains of a... Read More
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would allow a vote to fill a Supreme Court vacancy if a justice dies in 2020, he told the Paducah Chamber of Commerce. Three years ago, McConnell blocked a vote on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomination. He argued the winner... Read More
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the portion of an Indiana law signed by Vice President Mike Pence during his tenure as governor that requires fetal remains from abortions be buried or cremated. The ruling partially reversed an earlier decision by the Seventh Circuit that... Read More
A majority of American voters believe the U.S. Supreme Court was right in 1973 when it ruled in Roe v. Wade that women have a constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion, and most also believe the current generation of justices will uphold that ruling. Those are... Read More
From the very beginning of the Republic, campaign finance has been a hard subject to discuss in polite company. In a capitalist society, things, including access to whatever serves as the public megaphone of the era, simply cost money. And in a Democracy where almost everyone,... Read More