|
In response to
"Mazars appears to be 7-2 that the House CAN issue subpoenas but these may be too broad and Courts below need to narrow them -- nm"
by
JackDawson
|
Yup. With the same lineup--Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with Roberts and libs. Sent back for a new look at the subpoenas under this new test --this will be
Posted by
JackDawson (aka dawson)
Jul 9 '20, 07:22
|
embroiled in litigation past 2020 election, as we expected
Several special considerations inform this analysis. First, courts
should carefully assess whether the asserted legislative purpose warrants the significant step of involving the President and his papers.
“ ‘[O]ccasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two
branches’ should be avoided whenever possible.” Cheney v. United
States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 389–390 (quoting Nixon, 418
U. S., at 692). Congress may not rely on the President’s information if
other sources could reasonably provide Congress the information it
needs in light of its particular legislative objective. Second, to narrow
the scope of possible conflict between the branches, courts should insist
on a subpoena no broader than reasonably necessary to support Congress’s legislative objective. The specificity of the subpoena’s request
“serves as an important safeguard against unnecessary intrusion into
the operation of the Office of the President.” Cheney, 542 U. S., at 387.
Third, courts should be attentive to the nature of the evidence offered
by Congress to establish that a subpoena advances a valid legislative
purpose. The more detailed and substantial, the better. That is particularly true when Congress contemplates legislation that raises sensitive constitutional issues, such as legislation concerning the Presidency. Fourth, courts should assess the burdens imposed on the
President by a subpoena, particularly because they stem from a rival
political branch that has an ongoing relationship with the President
and incentives to use subpoenas for institutional advantage. Other
considerations may be pertinent as well; one case every two centuries
does not afford enough experience for an exhaustive list. Pp. 18–20.
|
Responses:
|