About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (March 25, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govcaxx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ~* or 101 ' Researh Servi kM- Full D.C. Circuit to Consider Whether Committees Can Enforce Congressional Subpoenas in Court March 25, 2020 Although legal disputes between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government periodically lead to litigation, federal courts sometimes hesitate to adjudicate such disputes because deciding whether a coordinate branch of government has broken the law can implicate separation-of- powers principles. For example, a panel of three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held in February that the House Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) lacked standing to bring a federal lawsuit to enforce a congressional subpoena against former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II. Shortly thereafter, however, the Committee successfully persuaded the D.C. Circuit to vacate the panel's judgment and rehear the case en banc, which means all of the active judges of the court who are not recused will rehear the case. The en banc court's decision could affect whether-and under what circumstances-congressional entities may file lawsuits seeking information or testimony from executive branch defendants. This Sidebar therefore analyzes the standing doctrine before discussing McGahn and its implications for Congress. Article III Standing and Interbranch Litigation Article iii, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal judiciary to hear certain enumerated categories of Cases and Controversies. The Supreme Court has therefore inferred that federal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes that do not qualify as Cases or Controversies. To implement this limitation, the Court has developed several juticiabity doctrines that preclude federal courts from resolving certain types of disagreements. One such doctrine is Article III standing, which requires plaintiffs (and sometimes other litigants) to prove they have suffered an injury in fact that is traceable to their opponents' conduct, and that a court can redress the injury by issuing a decision favorable to the plaintiff. To satisfy the injury in fact requirement, a litigant must show that it has suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete andparticularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.' Litigants who cannot satisfy these jurisdictional prerequisites cannot maintain lawsuits in federal court. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10429 CRS Lega Sidebar Prepaed for Membei's and Cornm ittees o4 Corqress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most