A historical fiction author has asked the Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that makes it harder for judges to release grand jury materials. The petition comes Democrats and journalists are seeking that a court do that in the context of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Just in time for the orange blimp’s second inauguration?
Don’t give us nightmares. Please.
#copyeditor: What are you trying to say with that second sentence?
(The below was already posted in a Hive thread pursuant to this story)
this is the McKeever case – the one that created new precedent that is applicable to the Judiciary Committee’s efforts to get the Mueller Report grand jury material.
Note that this is just a request that the Supreme Court accept an appeal. My guess is that the Court will be compelled to do so, given that the McKeever decision is at odds with decisions in other Circuits.
But in either case, it could be bad news for the Judiciary Committee.
If the Supreme Court does not accept the appeal, relevant precedent would make it hard for the committee to get the grand jury material short of actually invoking impeachment powers.
If the Court does accept the appeal, the judge could delay her decision until the Court resolves the issue.
The question now being put in front of the Supreme Court is whether judges are limited to the justifications for releasing grand jury material that are explicitly laid out in federal grand jury law. Or, if judges have an inherent authority beyond those exceptions to those materials, including “when the case is historically significant and the public interest strongly favors disclosure.”
So, IOW, this case is regarding whether or not those limitations established by grand jury law are, themselves, against the law.
This will be very interesting. This will no doubt be used as legal precedent in future challenges against this and every future President.
Be very careful what you wish for.
Perish. The. Thought.
no. The question is whether the prescription of categories permitting disclosure under statutory law proscribes information that other courts have found would be available under common law. (e;g; ‘the public good’)
Easy call for the Roberts Court:
I’m surprised anyone thinks this is complicated.
as an aside…
The Treasury Dept/IRS/DoJ response to the lawsuit is due today… but its still not showing up on the docket.
I’m surprised anyone with more than two functioning brain cells still believes that the Supremes are anything less than 5 Republican Kings.
FIFY
It’s a corollary of the well-established legal principle: “Heads I win, tails you lose.”
I like your version…
in 2016, these guys were one security question away from gaining access to Trump’s tax returns. If it was this easy then, does anyone really believe that the Russians (and others) don’t already have copies?
Trump managed to negotiate them down to calling themselves “The Duma.”
I like to think the entire past 3 years has been “historical fiction”, but, like in Groundhog Day, I wake up in the morning every day to the same nonsense. Maybe in an alternate universe, America has a real President.
Something else that will be headed to the courts … Barr’s DOJ using its power to try to pressure auto makers to go along with Trump’s rollback of emissions standards rather than their agreement with CA to abide by what Obama put in place.
DOJ threatening antitrust case just to try to make Trump look good. And EPA telling the CA Air Resources Board "to act immediately to dissociate CARB from the commitments made by the four automakers,” the two agencies’ general counsels wrote. “Those commitments may result in legal consequences given the limits placed in federal law on California’s authority.”
To both of which the CARB Chairwoman says: “The U.S. Department of Justice brings its weight to bear against auto companies in an attempt to frighten them out of voluntarily making cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks than EPA wants,” Nichols said in a statement. “Consumers might ask, who is [EPA administrator] Andy Wheeler protecting?”
And Gavin Newsom says: “The Trump administration has been attempting and failing to bully car companies for months now. We remain undeterred,” Newsom said. “California stands up to bullies and will keep fighting for stronger clean car protections that protect the health and safety of our children and families."
I think that this is the case.
I’m still floored by this. Just how much do Trump and Barr hate even their own families that they want to go back to having burning rivers, smog-coated cities…