Loading...

Judiciary Committee Presses Supreme Court for Release of Mueller Grand Jury Material

May 19, 2020 by Dan McCue
Judiciary Committee Presses Supreme Court for Release of Mueller Grand Jury Material

WASHINGTON – Both Congress and the American public will “suffer grave and irreparable injury” if there continues to be a delay in the release of grand jury testimony from the Robert Mueller investigation, lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee said in court papers on Monday.

The new filing in the Supreme Court came in response to a Justice Department request that the high court set aside orders that Congress receive secret grand jury evidence from the special counsel’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that Congress could obtain grand jury materials in connection with last winter’s impeachment proceedings.

The committee wants to see portions of the Mueller report that had been redacted, along with grand jury transcripts and other materials that have been kept secret.

The Justice Department has fought their release ever since, telling the justices last week that the decisions by the lower courts created “serious separation-of-powers concerns.

Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the release of the materials, and the DOJ has asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and set aside the lower courts’ rulings.

The Justice Department’s position is that the D.C. Circuit relied on an exception to the general rule of grand jury secrecy that allows courts to authorize disclosure of grand jury materials in connection with a judicial proceeding.

At the time the question was before the appeals court, that proceeding was the impeachment trial of the president.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco has indicated the government plans to petition the Supreme Court for a review of that conclusion. The government is expected to argue an impeachment trial in the Senate is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of an exception to grand-jury secrecy under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure.

It also contends the Judiciary Committee has not identified any urgent need to receive the materials, particularly since the impeachment trial has ended.

Had Chief Justice Roberts not intervened, the Justice Department would have had to disclose the materials last Monday, pre-empting the government’s ability to seek further review of the case.

In Monday’s filing, Douglas Letter, counsel of record for the Judiciary Committee, said the Justice Department failed to meet the standard for a stay, and that it should therefore be denied.

Further, it said, “At bottom, DOJ has failed to demonstrate that this Court’s review would be warranted here.”

Douglas and his team of attorneys also argue that there is simply no basis for a review of the lower court rulings by the justices since there is no conflict with any decision of the high court and no split among the circuits on the matter.

“The sole question at issue likely will arise only rarely,” they wrote. “In any event, the decision … was plainly correct.”

The attorneys go on to argue the material to be disclosed does not belong to the Justice Department, and the grand jury investigation the material arose from has completed its work.

“In addition, the Committee has adopted procedures — which both the district court and the court of appeals found sufficient — to protect the confidentiality of the material. And, tellingly, DOJ makes no argument that a stay of disclosure to the Committee is necessary to protect ongoing criminal investigations,” the filing said.

If the Justice Department’s request for a prolonged stay were granted, it would not have to file a petition for the case to be heard by the Supreme Court until August 2020.

“Therefore this Court likely would not determine whether to grant or deny that petition until at least October 2020. This substantial delay will seriously endanger the Committee’s ability to complete its impeachment investigation during the current Congress — which ends not long thereafter on January 3, 2021,” the filing said. 

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

July 2, 2022
by Dan McCue
What’s Next for the Supreme Court? Affirmative Action, 1st Amendment Rights, Wetlands Protection

WASHINGTON — With its ruling on Biden v. Texas, a case in which it allowed the Biden administration to terminate... Read More

WASHINGTON — With its ruling on Biden v. Texas, a case in which it allowed the Biden administration to terminate the controversial Trump-era asylum policy known as "remain in Mexico," the Supreme Court on Thursday concluded what was undoubtedly one of its most momentous terms in... Read More

Same-Sex Couples Updating Legal Status After Abortion Ruling

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Emails and phone calls from same-sex couples, worried about the legal status of their marriages and... Read More

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Emails and phone calls from same-sex couples, worried about the legal status of their marriages and keeping their children, flooded attorney Sydney Duncan’s office within hours of the Supreme Court’s decision eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. The ruling last week didn’t directly... Read More

Abortion, Women's Rights Grow as Priorities: AP-NORC Poll

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new poll finds a growing percentage of Americans calling out abortion or women’s rights as priorities... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new poll finds a growing percentage of Americans calling out abortion or women’s rights as priorities for the government in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, especially among Democrats and those who support abortion access. With midterm... Read More

June 30, 2022
by Reece Nations
What They’re Saying About the End of the 'Remain in Mexico' Policy 

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices on Thursday approved the Biden administration’s attempts to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocol, or the... Read More

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justices on Thursday approved the Biden administration’s attempts to rescind the Migrant Protection Protocol, or the “Remain in Mexico” border policy, dealing a blow to Republican-led states’ attempts to prolong the enforcement of Trump-era immigration policy. The justices’ decision in Biden v.... Read More

Jackson Sworn In, Becomes 1st Black Woman on Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a glass ceiling as... Read More

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in to the Supreme Court on Thursday, shattering a glass ceiling as the first Black woman on the nation's highest court. The 51-year-old Jackson is the court's 116th justice, and she took the place of the justice she... Read More

June 30, 2022
by Dan McCue
Supreme Court to Hear Case on State Authority Over Elections

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear an appeal from North Carolina Republicans that could ultimately remove... Read More

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear an appeal from North Carolina Republicans that could ultimately remove state court authority over congressional redistricting.  If they decide for the petitioners in Moore v. Harper, the justices would dramatically limit when state courts could intervene,... Read More

News From The Well