This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/appeals-court-takes-up-trump-border-wall-donald-mcgahn-subpoena-cases/2020/04/27/685e6562-856e-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=wp_homepage
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Appeals court takes up Trump border wall and Donald McGahn subpoena cases | |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| A federal appeals court in Washington expressed skepticism Tuesday about the Trump administration’s claim that Congress can never go to court to enforce its oversight and spending powers in a pair of historic disputes between House Democrats and the president. | A federal appeals court in Washington expressed skepticism Tuesday about the Trump administration’s claim that Congress can never go to court to enforce its oversight and spending powers in a pair of historic disputes between House Democrats and the president. |
| The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was considering two separation-of-powers cases over a House subpoena for former White House Counsel Donald McGahn and its power to limit federal government spending on the president’s signature southern border wall project. | The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was considering two separation-of-powers cases over a House subpoena for former White House Counsel Donald McGahn and its power to limit federal government spending on the president’s signature southern border wall project. |
| Throughout the three-hour argument held by teleconference, judges raised concerns about cutting off the courts to Congress to check presidential power. | Throughout the three-hour argument held by teleconference, judges raised concerns about cutting off the courts to Congress to check presidential power. |
| Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan urged the judges to stay out of “this political tug-of-war” that he said “risks damaging public confidence in the impartiality” of the court. A decision in the House’s favor, he said, would open the floodgates, allowing lawmakers to “come in and sue every time the executive branch exceeded its authority.” | Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan urged the judges to stay out of “this political tug-of-war” that he said “risks damaging public confidence in the impartiality” of the court. A decision in the House’s favor, he said, would open the floodgates, allowing lawmakers to “come in and sue every time the executive branch exceeded its authority.” |
| Several judges suggested that there were no limits to the Trump administration’s argument. If a president abused his powers, Judge Judith W. Rogers asked, does the Justice Department’s position mean that “there’s nothing that can be done until the next presidential election other than revolution?” | Several judges suggested that there were no limits to the Trump administration’s argument. If a president abused his powers, Judge Judith W. Rogers asked, does the Justice Department’s position mean that “there’s nothing that can be done until the next presidential election other than revolution?” |
| Appeals court ruling means McGahn does not have to testify to House | Appeals court ruling means McGahn does not have to testify to House |
| In a series of hypothetical questions, Judge Merrick B. Garland asked whether the Justice Department’s view meant that presidents were free to fund the Affordable Care Act or send stimulus checks to all Americans without congressional approval. | In a series of hypothetical questions, Judge Merrick B. Garland asked whether the Justice Department’s view meant that presidents were free to fund the Affordable Care Act or send stimulus checks to all Americans without congressional approval. |
| “If the appropriations power can never be checked in a situation where the government just gives money away either for health care or for maintenance, that’s a significant power that the president has that can’t be checked by Congress,” Garland said. | “If the appropriations power can never be checked in a situation where the government just gives money away either for health care or for maintenance, that’s a significant power that the president has that can’t be checked by Congress,” Garland said. |
| House general counsel Douglas Letter asked the judges not to “close the courtroom doors” to lawmakers who are trying to preserve their constitutional oversight and spending authority, and to “help prevent the executive from becoming a monarch.” | House general counsel Douglas Letter asked the judges not to “close the courtroom doors” to lawmakers who are trying to preserve their constitutional oversight and spending authority, and to “help prevent the executive from becoming a monarch.” |
| Underscoring the significance of the cases, the court was sitting Tuesday with a complement of nine judges instead of the usual three-judge panel. The consolidated arguments were held by teleconference as the court’s doors have been largely closed to the public since mid-March because of the coronavirus pandemic. | Underscoring the significance of the cases, the court was sitting Tuesday with a complement of nine judges instead of the usual three-judge panel. The consolidated arguments were held by teleconference as the court’s doors have been largely closed to the public since mid-March because of the coronavirus pandemic. |
| The full appeals court agreed last month to reconsider the dismissal of the two lawsuits brought by House Democrats, marking a temporary victory for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The decisions will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. | The full appeals court agreed last month to reconsider the dismissal of the two lawsuits brought by House Democrats, marking a temporary victory for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The decisions will probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. |
| Full appeals court to rehear Donald McGahn subpoena and Trump border wall cases | Full appeals court to rehear Donald McGahn subpoena and Trump border wall cases |
| Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao did not participate in either case Tuesday. Both were nominated by the president and previously held high-level positions in the Trump administration. | Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao did not participate in either case Tuesday. Both were nominated by the president and previously held high-level positions in the Trump administration. |
| In the first case, a divided three-judge panel of the appeals court in February said that it had no authority to resolve a “bitter political showdown” over the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for testimony from McGahn. | In the first case, a divided three-judge panel of the appeals court in February said that it had no authority to resolve a “bitter political showdown” over the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoena for testimony from McGahn. |
| “We cannot decide this case without declaring the actions of one or the other unconstitutional, and ‘occasions for constitutional confrontation … should be avoided whenever possible,’ ” wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Karen LeCraft Henderson. | “We cannot decide this case without declaring the actions of one or the other unconstitutional, and ‘occasions for constitutional confrontation … should be avoided whenever possible,’ ” wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Karen LeCraft Henderson. |
| Rogers dissented, warning that the court had fatally compromised Congress’s ability to check presidential power and that the majority’s opinion encourages “presidential stonewalling.” | Rogers dissented, warning that the court had fatally compromised Congress’s ability to check presidential power and that the majority’s opinion encourages “presidential stonewalling.” |
| In their court filing this month, House lawyers said McGahn’s testimony is still relevant to ongoing oversight. His testimony will help the Judiciary Committee decide whether Trump “committed impeachable offenses” in the investigation of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and “whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.” | In their court filing this month, House lawyers said McGahn’s testimony is still relevant to ongoing oversight. His testimony will help the Judiciary Committee decide whether Trump “committed impeachable offenses” in the investigation of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and “whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.” |
| The lawsuit was filed before the House opened impeachment proceedings and voted in December to impeach Trump for his alleged effort to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations that would benefit his reelection campaign. The Senate voted to acquit Trump on Feb. 5. | The lawsuit was filed before the House opened impeachment proceedings and voted in December to impeach Trump for his alleged effort to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations that would benefit his reelection campaign. The Senate voted to acquit Trump on Feb. 5. |
| Trump had blocked McGahn’s testimony, saying the key presidential adviser was “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony” and could not be forced to answer questions or turn over documents. | Trump had blocked McGahn’s testimony, saying the key presidential adviser was “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony” and could not be forced to answer questions or turn over documents. |
| Supreme Court says Trump can proceed with plan to spend military funds for border wall construction | Supreme Court says Trump can proceed with plan to spend military funds for border wall construction |
| In the second case, the appeals court is considering whether the House has legal grounds to sue the Trump administration over the diversion of billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. | In the second case, the appeals court is considering whether the House has legal grounds to sue the Trump administration over the diversion of billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. |
| The dispute over border wall spending between Congress and the administration prompted the longest government shutdown in history. The stalemate ended in 2019 with Congress allocating about $1.4 billion for enhanced security along the border in Texas, far less than the $5.7 billion Trump had requested. | The dispute over border wall spending between Congress and the administration prompted the longest government shutdown in history. The stalemate ended in 2019 with Congress allocating about $1.4 billion for enhanced security along the border in Texas, far less than the $5.7 billion Trump had requested. |
| The House lawsuit claims that Trump violated the Constitution by ignoring the spending limits imposed by Congress and diverting more than $6 billion allocated for other purposes to fund the wall. He invoked several statutes he said allowed him to repurpose appropriations — a move House Democrats say upended Congress’s essential check on the president and its power of the purse. | The House lawsuit claims that Trump violated the Constitution by ignoring the spending limits imposed by Congress and diverting more than $6 billion allocated for other purposes to fund the wall. He invoked several statutes he said allowed him to repurpose appropriations — a move House Democrats say upended Congress’s essential check on the president and its power of the purse. |
| “The President recognized the day that he signed the $1.375 billion compromise legislative package that Congress had chosen not to provide the additional funding he requested; he simply chose not to abide by that limit,” according to the court filing from House lawyers. | “The President recognized the day that he signed the $1.375 billion compromise legislative package that Congress had chosen not to provide the additional funding he requested; he simply chose not to abide by that limit,” according to the court filing from House lawyers. |
| The House position attracted support from a long list of former lawyers for past House speakers from both parties and from a bipartisan group of more than 100 former members of Congress. The former House members told the court the “Executive Branch is undermining the separation of powers by proposing to spend tax dollars to build a border wall that Congress repeatedly and emphatically refused to fund.” | The House position attracted support from a long list of former lawyers for past House speakers from both parties and from a bipartisan group of more than 100 former members of Congress. The former House members told the court the “Executive Branch is undermining the separation of powers by proposing to spend tax dollars to build a border wall that Congress repeatedly and emphatically refused to fund.” |
| Justice Department lawyers told the appeals court Tuesday that a single chamber of Congress cannot sue the administration because the power to appropriate federal funds is assigned to Congress as a whole. | Justice Department lawyers told the appeals court Tuesday that a single chamber of Congress cannot sue the administration because the power to appropriate federal funds is assigned to Congress as a whole. |
| Judge Griffith appeared to embrace that argument, asking the House lawyer: “Isn’t it pretty clear that you need to have the Senate with you right now to bring this suit?” | Judge Griffith appeared to embrace that argument, asking the House lawyer: “Isn’t it pretty clear that you need to have the Senate with you right now to bring this suit?” |
| In June, a District Court judge also sided with the Justice Department and dismissed the House lawsuit. | In June, a District Court judge also sided with the Justice Department and dismissed the House lawsuit. |
| The dispute over border wall spending has already reached the Supreme Court in a separate case from California. | The dispute over border wall spending has already reached the Supreme Court in a separate case from California. |
| Last summer, a divided high court said the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the wall project along the southern border. That action put on hold an injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as the litigation continues. | Last summer, a divided high court said the Trump administration could proceed with its plan to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds to build part of the wall project along the southern border. That action put on hold an injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as the litigation continues. |
| Civil rights advocates seek release of at-risk inmates, alleging unsanitary conditions at Prince George’s jail in new federal lawsuit | Civil rights advocates seek release of at-risk inmates, alleging unsanitary conditions at Prince George’s jail in new federal lawsuit |
| In court, he speaks for Speaker Nancy Pelosi | In court, he speaks for Speaker Nancy Pelosi |
| William S. Consovoy: The private lawyer arguing to protect President Trump’s interests | William S. Consovoy: The private lawyer arguing to protect President Trump’s interests |
| Local newsletters: Local headlines (8 a.m.) | Afternoon Buzz (4 p.m.) | Local newsletters: Local headlines (8 a.m.) | Afternoon Buzz (4 p.m.) |
| Like PostLocal on Facebook | Follow @postlocal on Twitter | Latest local news | Like PostLocal on Facebook | Follow @postlocal on Twitter | Latest local news |