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

1 1 (May 24, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govzvy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ACongressional _______ ~Research Service informing the Iegislative debate since 1914 Legislative Purpose and Adviser Immunity in Congressional Investigations May 24, 2019 The Trump Administration has recently questioned the legal validity of numerous investigative demands made by House committees. These objections have been based on various grounds, but two specific arguments will be addressed in this Sidebar. First, the President and other Administration officials have contended that certain committee demands lack a valid legislative purpose and therefore do not fall within Congress's investigative authority. This objection has been made not only in response to investigations seeking information relating to the President's personal finances, including his financial records and federal tax returns, but also to challenge a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for the complete version of Special Counsel Mueller's report along with underlying evidence and materials. Second, the President has made a more generalized claim that his advisers cannot be made to testify before Congress, even in the face of a committee subpoena. This position, based upon the executive branch's longstanding conception of immunity for presidential advisers from compelled congressional testimony regarding their official duties, was recently put into effect by the White House in a letter announcing that the President directed former White House counsel Don McGahn not to appear at a scheduled House Judiciary Committee hearing. The letter asserted that Mr. McGahn, now a private citizen, is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the President. While the particulars of any given information access dispute between the executive and legislative branches are important, existing legal precedent would suggest that these types of objections to Congress's exercise of its constitutionally based investigatory powers will likely face an uphill battle. As to the first question, courts have only rarely invalidated congressional investigative demands on the ground that the committee lacks a legislative purpose. Instead, courts have generally acknowledged that the judiciary has a duty of not lightly interfering with Congress' exercise of its legitimate powers. When the courts have questioned whether a committee is acting with a valid purpose, the issue has generally arisen in connection to an investigative demand issued to a private citizen that implicates individual constitutional rights, rather than in connection to an investigation of a government official. Recently, two federal district courts (in cases initiated by President Trump and affiliated entities) rejected arguments made by President Trump's personal attorneys that House committees exceeded their investigative authority by demanding access to the President's personal and organizational financial statements. In Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10301 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

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