The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
D.C. Circuit Rejects Trump Effort to Block Release of Documents to January 6 Committee
Will the Supreme Court step in?
This afternoon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected former President Donald Trump's request for a preliminary injunction barring the Archivist from turning over documents requested by the Congressional committee investigating the events of January 6 and Trump's effort to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election. Without question the former President will now seek an injunction from the Supreme Court. While such a move might further delay the release of documents, I do not think Trump will ultimately prevail.
Judge Millett wrote the court's 68-page opinion in Trump v. Thompson, joined by Judges Wilkins and Jackson. Interestingly enough, the court decided to issue this opinion on a Thursday afternoon, only ten days after the case was argued, rather than wait to release the opinion in the normal course tomorrow. (The D.C. Circuit generally releases opinions on Tuesday and Friday mornings.)
On first-skim, the opinion seems correct. The former President's executive privilege claim here is particularly weak, given both the subject matter of the material sought and the current President's conclusion that executive privilege does not and should not bar the release of these documents. Further, the congressional interest in these documents is strong, and certainly far greater than it was for the former President's personal financial records.
Here is how Judge Millett summarizes the key issues and the court's conclusions:
The central question in this case is whether, despite the exceptional and imperative circumstances underlying the Committee's request and President Biden's decision, a federal court can, at the former President's behest, override President Biden's decision not to invoke privilege and prevent his release
to Congress of documents in his possession that he deems to be needed for a critical legislative inquiry.On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden's judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents. Both Branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these
documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committee's inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power.More specifically, the former President has failed to establish a likelihood of success given (1) President Biden's carefully reasoned and cabined determination that a claim of executive privilege is not in the interests of the United States; (2) Congress's uniquely vital interest in studying the January
6th attack on itself to formulate remedial legislation and to safeguard its constitutional and legislative operations; (3) the demonstrated relevance of the documents at issue to the congressional inquiry; (4) the absence of any identified alternative source for the information; and (5) Mr. Trump's failure even to allege, let alone demonstrate, any particularized harm that would arise from disclosure, any distinct and superseding interest in confidentiality attached to these particular documents, lack of relevance, or any other reasoned justification for withholding the documents. Former President Trump likewise has failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of interests and equities weigh decisively in favor of disclosure.
The opinion concludes:
For all of the foregoing reasons, former President Trump has not shown that he is entitled to a preliminary injunction.
We do not come to that conclusion lightly. The confidentiality of presidential communications is critical to the effective functioning of the Presidency for the reasons that former President Trump presses, and his effort to vindicate that
interest is itself a right of constitutional import.But our Constitution divides, checks, and balances power to preserve democracy and to ensure liberty. For that reason, the executive privilege for presidential communications is a qualified one that Mr. Trump agrees must give way when
necessary to protect overriding interests. See Oral Arg. Tr. 33:18–21, 34:23–25. The President and the Legislative Branch have shown a national interest in and pressing need for the prompt disclosure of these documents.What Mr. Trump seeks is to have an Article III court intervene and nullify those judgments of the President and Congress, delay the Committee's work, and derail the negotiations and accommodations that the Political Branches have made. But essential to the rule of law is the principle that a former President must meet the same legal standards for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief as everyone else. And former President Trump has failed that task.
Benjamin Franklin said, at the founding, that we have "[a] Republic"—"if [we] can keep it." The events of January 6th exposed the fragility of those democratic institutions and traditions that we had perhaps come to take for granted. In response, the President of the United States and Congress have each made the judgment that access to this subset of presidential communication records is necessary to address a matter of great constitutional moment for the Republic. Former President Trump has given this court no legal reason to cast aside President Biden's assessment of the Executive Branch interests at stake, or to create a separation of powers conflict that the Political Branches have avoided.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"...and Trump's effort to subject the outcome..."
I assume that this is a small typo. (Or is it a term of art I'm unfamiliar with?)
This decision is the Deep State asserting its power. It is dismissed as garbage. Parties should be allowed to move their hearings to neutral areas. No court in DC can fairly judge any Trump matter. He threatened their livelihoods.
Hopefully SCOTUS will reject the appeal and settle the matter. Two courts have already weighed in with the same opinion.
The case is important, but it isn't very legally interesting. There's no circuit split, not even a disagreement among appellate judges. And, frankly, Trump's arguments are embarrassingly bad. I could see SCOTUS saying "No thank you."
Agreed
Just reading the Adler excerpt it looks like a Trump-only opinion.
Much talk about the exceptional need for the info, and the deeply deep analysis by the current President's team. Indicating that on some later occasion, the DC Circuit will feel happy to decide that Congress doesn't really need the info and / or that former Presidents can claim Execeutive Privilege over the objections of the sitting President. If the sitting President's analysis is not deeply deep enough.
In short - no precedent is to be set.
Just reading this comment, it looks like a Trumpist opinion.
Much talk of a double standard for Trump. Indicating the commenter is committed to the idea that Trump can never fail only be failed by judges plotting against him.
[Dude, the court drew a line. Courts do that. That is not an indicator this is tailored just to stick it to Trump.]
"not an indicator this is tailored just to stick it to Trump."
Unlike you, we weren't in a coma between 2017 and 2020. Lower court opinions tailored just to stick it to Trump were the norm.
Nope, complaining about court decisions be declaring such was the norm, that's all.
Dude, the court drew a line. Courts do that
Sure, but if Adler's excerpt is representative the line drawing did not seem to involve any decision on an actual point of law :
(a) it's not our place to second guess our co-equal branch, aka Congress, as to whether this is really needed for proper legislative reasons
so that second-guessing is in principle OK, or
(b) Executive Privilege can only be claimed by the sitting President
so that next time round they might accept a claim by an ex President.
It was all - "we have a pencil and it looks like we'll draw the line here today."
Yes, that is how line drawing works. You have costs on one side and benefits on the other, and you draw a line somewhere in the middle.
Which is why I like my judges to be hogtied by text, with their hands tightly bound to an anvil, so that their pencil has only fractional scope for movement.
Costs and benefits are for business folk, politicians and purchasers of kitchen appliances - the less of it that judges do, the better.
Where might one find the relevant executive privilege in the text?
You would replace a fact-specific analysis with a one-size-fits-all system.
Your distrust of judges has made you go in for a much less free system.
Your distrust of judges has made you go in for a much less free system.
"free" is a very strange word to use here (nothing whatever to do with the freedom of the citizen) - since what you are really referring to is the freedom of the judge - ie the arbitrary rule of judges as opposed to the rule of law, and the citizen left to guess which side of bed the judge got out of this morning.
Judicial discretion is a tyrannical notion. It's not avoidable, but it should be crushed into the tiniest possible hole.
I suspect that any sitting President would allow the claim of EP on a legitimate request. This is simple the former President attempting to hide culpability. Maybe his own maybe some of his supporters. There is nothing in the requested document that likely comes near protecting the Presidency.
How sweet, and how fitting for your name.
Back on Earth, now that Joe has set the precedent, all future Presidents will decline to confirm a claim of Executive Privilege by any former President, whenever it seems politically convenient so to do.
And, all in all, this political precedent will swing round to bite the Democrats in the backside. Because the Dems own the permanent bureaucracy, no Republican President has any serious expectation that administration papers and deliberations will be kept secret - if it's worth leaking it'll be leaked.
But Democratic Presidents are protected by a wall of omerta throughout the bureaucracy. Hence the idea that the next Republican President could reveal all their papers and deliberations ought to be pretty scary for them.
But the rule of Democrat norm-breaking is that they never think ahead.
There are currently five ex-Presidents living and none of the other four have voiced support for Trump's request for EP. I don't think this is a precedent because I don't think another President's will hide behind EP. They will request an EP if and when appropriate.
The fact is that Trump was the precedent setter. History shows that when a President requests EP, the White House and Congress typically work out a compromise. It was Trump that set the precedent for stone walling.
By the way, I would point out that President Biden did not object to a number of general reporting to Congress on the Afghanistan withdrawl, even when those generals reported things unfavorable to the President. Ask yourself, if the former President Trump could have done that.
There are currently five ex-Presidents living and none of the other four have voiced support for Trump's request for EP
Simply irrelevant to the precedent set. The new precedent is that the sitting President doesn't have to support an ex President's claim for EP. And since Presidents are politicians they'll do it for political advantage.
And should Trump stand and be returned to office in 2025 (unlikely IMHO, but certainly possible) I would expect him to release every single non classified document created during the Obama and Biden administrations, simply on principle - without anyone even asking. And then declassify and release most of the rest.
" The new precedent is that the sitting President doesn't have to support an ex President's claim for EP. "
When was a president forced to support an ex-president's executive privilege claim, let alone this one?
That's not principle, that's spite.
As I recall, the longest presidential records can be kept restricted is 12 years. Most are subject to Freedom of Information Act requests after 5 years. So, the majority of Obama's are already available (other than classified ones), and more would be available by the time of a hypothetical GOP prez in 2024.
So get those FOIA requests out there and start embarrassing Obama! Why wait for a new Trump admin? You can probably get all the records on the Tan Suit now. Obama must be shaking in his boots.
I forget precisely what the subject matter was, but there was a recent FOIA request to which the government replied that it would take 50 years to go through the documents, so the applicant would have to wait.
Not really. It is very specific to the current case and its circumstances, so it does indeed involve Trump, but it isn't a broad rejection of a former President's ability to assert executive privilege when a current President disagrees. By the terms of this ruling, even Trump himself is free to invoke privilege over subsequent sets of document and sue again if Biden disagrees. He will have to have better and more specific legal arguments if he wants to win, though.
1) Just reading the Adler excerpt it doesn't look anything like a Trump-only opinion.
2) You could try being less lazy and reading the whole opinion.
This committee is a farce, and everybody. Congress does not have a general investigative power (or at least it didn't till Trump came to town.) That is an executive function, and why we (ostensibly) have a Justice Department. Congress must have a "legitimate legislative purpose" for its investigations, though there is no conceivable legislation that will come from this. This hyper-partisan committee, which has always had pre-ordained conclusions, has as its only purpose to smear Trump and help Democrats get elected. The Republicans have never had the stomach to play lawfare games like the Democrats, but, sadly, they must find it. Every institution in government, from the Justice Department to the Congress to the judiciary, has debased itself to "get Trump". I hope the loss of credibility in the eyes of half the nation was worth it.
This might be the ultimate masterpiece of every accusation is a confession.
Congress does not have a general investigative power
Whatever happened to Benjamin Ghazi?
You are right. It is like F.D.Wolf never read the Constitution. Congress has been doing investigations for as long as I have been alive.
There has to be a legislative purpose to an investigation.
"The subpoena must serve a “valid legislative purpose.” Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 161. Furthermore, Congress may not issue a subpoena for the purpose of “law enforcement,” because that power is assigned to the Executive and the Judiciary." TRUMP v. MAZARS USA, LLP
House doesn't have one here. "Insurrections" are already illegal.
Its a political fishing expedition.
Whatever happened to Benjamin Ghazi?
A "legislative purpose" means only that the investigation be on a subject about which Congress could legislate. There are an innumerable number of such subjects here.
If we lived in a fantasy world instead of one built on professional liars, perhaps.
The purpose was to embarrass and degrade his political might, not examine potential needs for laws.
How do I know this? All political activity is about power. The cover stories are for useful idiots to facetiously regurgitate as the powerful take their power and use it.
Of course, Trump is a sociopath, so "embarrassing" him is literally impossible. He has no actual sense of shame of any sort.
I think that Trump should be demanding that the Biden administration release these documents so that his profound propriety, probity and deep love of the rule of law is allowed to shine through. Doubtless such competence and love of the constitution exceeds that of any president ever, and upon the disclosure, those few hundred people who voted against Trump will slap their foreheads and say, "How could I have voted against this guy?"
As for legislation, shouldn't we immediately change the law so that Vice Presidents can' t pretend they don't have the power to reject electors certified by the states? (True, this might allow Harris to throw out the votes of Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Florida and the Dakota's in 2024, but really, it is the PRINCIPLE of the thing.) The reason this should be the law will be made utterly clear by the White House's solemn and incisive approach to the issue. The presidential deliberations would be nothing less than enlightening to the country--a true education in constitutional government that will make us all proud.
Next, we should find out what stopped Trump from taking Mike Lindell's and others' sensible suggestion of declaring martial law to suspend the election and thereby prevent the attack on the capital. The law should be clarified so that pusillanimous aides, disloyal generals and deep-state lawyers cannot obfuscate the issue. Congress could allow such action without further ado, when, say, courts reject 50 challenges seeking to overturn the election. Or maybe just require a judicially unreviewable "Presidential Finding" that fraud fatally tainted the election. That way, outraged patriots will have no need to assault the capital ever again.
The possible legislation from the lessons we can learn seem quite numerous. And who couldn't learn from being "a fly on the wall" during the most glorious presidency in history?
Although as Trump once wisely said, "If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth?" no one should take his reluctance to expose his brilliant and inspiring record as an attempt to hide anything damaging. Because, uh, because, uh, well you know, Antifa!
"As for legislation, shouldn't we immediately change the law so that Vice Presidents can' t pretend they don't have the power to reject electors certified by the states?"
Take some time to think about what you said. In many cases the seating VP may have been the candidate for the Presidency. This was the case for Al Gore and Richard Nixon (in 1960). Would you want the candidate to be able to throw out electors from states where he lost? Essentially the VP would always be the winner of Presidency.
Dude. Re-read the first paragraph of Stash's post, and then think again whether you might have misread the rest of it.
Thanks, I did and I see your point.
"No valid legislative purpose" is probably the worst argument Trump tried to raise here. It is obvious that Congress could learn things from this investigation that would directly inform all sorts of legislation.
That's just one of the worst arguments Trump tried to raise here.
He tried to argue something about in camera review of each individual document that confused the court and was stupid. As the court said, either (1) he wanted the judge to review each one to determine whether it was in fact covered by EP; (2) he wanted the judge to review each one to determine whether it should be released.
The first made no sense because the legal issue isn't whether the documents are covered by EP, but whether EP was validly waived by Biden; therefore, a ruling favorable to Trump wouldn't address the issue.
The second would be asking the judge to make an independent determination about EP waiver for each individual document without Trump ever making an argument about any of those documents.
No argument from me that that was bad.
All of his conclusory statements about the unprecedented broad waiver of executive privilege here were also terrible (and so easy for the court to refute).
The problems with that concept as applied is that Congress would be able to demand any records from anyone - because anything can potentially be legislated.
Congress wants nude photos of you? If they exist, Congress can get them!
They can call it "informing" on potential regulation of pornography, or revenge porn, or trafficking, or telecommunication services, licensing, or any of an absurd number of other "reasons". I have no doubt that Congress and their staffers can come up with a "plausible" reason to demand schoolwork, or private letters, or whatever they hell they feel might be embarrassing to an opponent.
A "restriction" that has no limits is worse than none at all, because it has all the demerits with none of the virtue of honesty.
" Congress does not have a general investigative power (or at least it didn't till Trump came to town.) "
Is that (1) a Ave Maria or Liberty law degree talking, (2) something you believe you recall from a discount homeschooling outline your substandard parents used, or (3) regurgitation of something you heard on Hannity, Carlson, or Ingraham last night?
In any event, it is precise the level of legal insight one has come to expect at a White, male, right-wing blog.
Carry on, clingers.
Maybe Democrats should throw in with the Jan 6th Protestors since they also act like Trump is still President with how much they obsess over him.
The beginning of sec. IV(B)(2) is particularly brutal (paragraph spanning pp. 46-47). The burden is on Trump, and he utterly fails to do anything but wave his arms and make bleating noises:
"He has not identified any specific countervailing need for confidentiality tied to the documents at issue, beyond their being presidential communications. Neither has he presented arguments that grapple with the substance of President Biden’s and Congress’s weighty judgments. Nor has he made even a preliminary showing that the content of any particular document lacks relevance to the Committee’s investigation. He offers instead only a grab-bag of objections that simply assert without elaboration his superior assessment of Executive Branch interests, insists that Congress and the Committee have no legitimate legislative interest in an attack on the Capitol, and impugns the motives of President Biden and the House. That falls far short of meeting his burden and makes it impossible for this court to find any likelihood of success."
In other news, there are still people left who believe that the 1/6 committee will ever see one pixel of the documents requested. There will be appeal/delay/appeal/delay until the clock runs out and/or nobody cares anymore. Trump is a master at this.
Anyone seen his tax returns? Last I heard although the ruling was unequivocally against him Trump won more delays until "at least" November.
And his team learns. Bannon will never appear in spite of being locked up (for a little while). He got 8 months of leave to prepare his defense. Then he'll fire his lawyer or something and get another 6 months because of that. By the time his case even comes up the election will have come and gone.
The wheels of justice turns slowly, but the Trump team has figured out how to make them slide back even as they turn forward.
I fear the Supreme Court will let Trump delay even longer. Contrary to Adler's opinion that might well let him prevail, especially if GOP gerrymandering and vote suppression hands them the House a year from now.
"GOP gerrymandering and vote suppression "
Sure chief. Those will be the reasons.
Not Biden's low approval ratings nor the GOP lead in the generic ballot nor the non-transitory inflation.
As for gerrymandering, look at Illinois and NY. Gop ain't doing those.
It's almost as though multiple factors can be in place at once!
As for gerrymandering, the Dems are into nonpartisan commissions, and the GOP...well they're like you, Bob.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1468986740618797070?s=20
To let him delay further, they will need 5 votes to grant an injunction. There might be three, but I doubt there are five. Especially since Trump's argument cuts the idea of the unitary executive which conservatives tend to love.
Issue #1: Will SCOTUS issue a temporary stay?
Issue #2: Will SCOTUS agree to hear the case?
There is no plausible scenario in which SCOTUS actually ultimately rules in Trump's favor. His position is laughable.
Is there a plausible scenario where Trump supporters on the Court take the case, then use insider back-and-forth to make the case take a very long time, before deciding against Trump after it is too late for Congress to follow up on any information it receives?
That's infinitely more plausible than them actually ruling in his favor. But I don't find it plausible, no. Even if they were inclined to do so — and I doubt it, if for no other reason than that I don't think there are any "Trump supporters on the Court" — there's too much time left before the midterms for them to do so without making it blatantly obvious that they were deliberately stalling.
In a sense, declining to take the appeal right at the turn of the New Year could be the S.Ct. equivalent of dumping poor news late on a Friday afternoon - if it's gonna come out, maybe this is the best time in the news cycle for Trump to get cold-shouldered by the S.Ct.
We also took for granted not using the power of government to investigate political opponents, raid their lawyers, facetiously leak their documents, and so on, regardless of how good it might feel.
This has been a rotten four years with abysmal behavior from both sides.
I'm not sure the 6th was the most dangerous dip during this period.