The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said
it would hear arguments in the case on April 28.
In a 2-1 decision issued on Feb. 28, a three-judge panel of the
court endorsed the Trump administration’s argument that the
court had no place in settling the closely watched dispute
between the executive and legislative branches of the U.S.
government. In doing so, it appeared to endorse an expansive
view of presidential powers and prerogatives.
The House Judiciary Committee had sought testimony from McGahn,
who left his post in October 2018, about Trump’s efforts to
impede former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation
that documented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
A report by Mueller, released by the Justice Department in
redacted form last April, portrayed McGahn as one of the few
individuals close to Trump to challenge the president when he
sought to have the special counsel removed.
The administration argued both that senior presidential advisers
are “absolutely immune” from being forced to testify to Congress
about official acts and that courts lack jurisdiction to resolve
such disputes.
The Feb. 28 decision, which reversed a lower court judge,
represented a vindication for the Republican president’s
sweeping directive that current and former officials defy
congressional requests for testimony and documents.
The court is to consider the McGahn case alongside another
dispute between the House of Representatives and the Trump
administration.
In that case, the House sued over Trump's announcement that he
would spend $8.1 billion on a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border
despite the fact Congress had only appropriated $1.375 billion.
The case raises similar issues to the McGahn case, with a
district court judge ruling that the House did not have standing
to sue.
(Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Tom Brown)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
![](column_spacer.png)
|
|