WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel on Monday again threw out a lawsuit by House Democrats to compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to appear before a congressional committee.
In a 2-1 ruling, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the House of Representatives lacks the authority under the Constitution or federal law to ask courts to enforce a subpoena against an executive branch official.
The latest decision comes weeks after the full appeals court rejected the panel’s initial ruling that would have ended the court fight over whether McGahn must testify before the House Judiciary Committee as part of its investigation of potential obstruction of justice by President Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
Court cases over the testimony of presidential advisers are rare because the White House and Congress typically reach an agreement. But Trump directed McGahn not to appear and the Democratic-controlled House filed suit to enforce the subpoena that was first issued in April 2019.
With time running out on the current House session, which ends on Jan. 3, the prospect that McGahn would have to testify already was remote.
House lawmakers had sought McGahn’s testimony because he was a vital witness for Mueller, whose report detailed the president’s outrage over the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s efforts to curtail it.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less