Wednesday, December 4, 2019
The Second Circuit ruled that Deutsche Bank and Capital One have to comply with subpoenas issued by the House Financial Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for financial records related to President Trump and his businesses. The court denied a preliminary injunction to halt the disclosures. While the ruling is technically preliminary, the court noted that it's effectively a ruling on the merits.
The ruling is yet another blow to President Trump and his continuing quest to keep his financial records secret. (We posted most recently here, on the Supreme Court's stay of a D.C. Circuit mandate to Mazars to release his financial records.) It's also yet another candidate for Supreme Court review.
After the Committees subpoenaed the banks, President Trump, his three oldest children, and some of their organizations sued the banks and the Committees seeking to halt the disclosure. The plaintiffs raised statutory and constitutional claims, although the court noted that President Trump specifically identified himself only as a private citizen.
The court held that the plaintiffs weren't likely to succeed on any of their claims. As to the first statutory claim, the court held that the Right to Financial Privacy Act did not prohibit the disclosures, because the RFPA doesn't apply to Congress. As to the second statutory claim, the court ruled that 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6103 and its several relevant subsections didn't bar the Committees from seeking the records from the banks.
As to the constitutional claim, the court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the Committees exceeded their power to investigate in issuing the subpoenas. The court noted the breadth of the subpoenas, but nevertheless held that the Committees had a valid legislative purpose (not focusing on possible illegalities committed by the President, but instead "on the existence of such activity in the banking industry, the adequacy of regulation by relevant agencies, and the need for legislation") and that the "public need" to investigate for that purpose "overbalances any private rights affected." On this balancing, the court wrote,
"[T]he weight to be ascribed to" the public need for the investigations the Committees are pursuing is of the highest order. The legislative purposes of the investigations concern national security and the integrity of elections, as detailed above. By contrast, the privacy interests concern private financial documents related to businesses, possibly enhanced by the risk that disclosure might distract the President in the performance of his official duties.
The court went on to hold that the subpoenas were sufficiently tailored to the Committees' legitimate purposes.
The court identified one request, however, that "might reveal sensitive personal details having no relationship to the Committees' legislative purposes," and others "that have such an attenuated relationship to the Committees' legislative purposes that they need not be disclosed." The court remanded to the district court and specified a procedure by which the court could exclude certain "sensitive documents."
As to all other documents not identified for exclusion or possible exclusion, however, the court ordered the banks to "promptly transmit to the Committees in daily batches as they are assembled, beginning seven days from the date of this opinion."
The court rejected the amicus government's separation-of-powers argument, holding that this case isn't about the separation of powers (because it involves a congressional request from a third party for information of the President in his personal capacity).
Judge Livingston dissented. She agreed with the majority that the plaintiffs lacked a likelihood of success on the merits of their statutory claims. But she disagreed about how to treat the constitutional claims. She argued that the case raises serious separation-of-powers concerns, and that the current record simply isn't well enough developed to evaluate those concerns. So she argued for a full remand, "directing the district court promptly to implement a procedure by which the Plaintiffs may lodge their objections to disclosure with regard to specific portions of the assembled material and so that the Committees can clearly articulate, also with regard to specific categories of information, the legislative purpose that supports disclosure and the pertinence of such information to that purpose."
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
The full Supreme Court issued an order yesterday staying the D.C. Circuit's mandate to Mazars to release President Trump's financial records, including tax filings, pending a writ of cert. on or before December 5.
The order extends a previous stay issued by Chief Justice Roberts and prompts President Trump to seek Supreme Court review. But the very brief order itself signals nothing about whether the Court will grant review, or how it will rule if it does. There's no dissenting opinion.
The stay expires on December 5, at noon, if no writ of cert. is filed.
If the Court grants review, we could have a ruling this spring or summer. But we won't get the taxes in the meantime.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (D.D.C.) ruled yesterday that former White House Counsel Don McGahn must comply with a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee and testify before the Committee. The ruling rejects the sweeping claim that high-level presidential advisors enjoy categorical testimonial immunity.
At the same time, the court held that McGahn could assert appropriate privileges (like executive privilege) to specific questions from the Committee.
The ruling deals a sharp blow to the Trump Administration and its attempts to categorically shield certain White House officials from testifying before Congress. It applies directly to McGahn, of course; but the reasoning applies equally, or even with greater force, to House testimony by senior presidential advisors in the impeachment inquiry. (Why "or even with greater force"? Because the House may be on even firmer ground in issuing any subpoenas in the course of an impeachment inquiry.)
The administration will surely appeal. (DOJ is representing McGahn and presented arguments on behalf of the executive branch.) As a result, we're unlikely to see McGahn testify anytime soon. If the parties continue to press the issue, it'll surely go to the Supreme Court. (The 2008 Miers case, which the court said was "on all fours" with this one, didn't go up on appeal, because the parties settled. That could happen here, too.)
The case arose when the Committee sued McGahn to enforce its subpoena against him to testify in its investigation into whether President Trump and his associates engaged in misconduct in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. DOJ, representing McGahn, argued that McGahn was a high-level presidential advisor who enjoyed absolute testimonial immunity before Congress.
The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case and then rejected DOJ's sweeping claim of immunity. In short, the court held that the issue was already decided by Judge Bates in 2008, in Committee on Judiciary v. Miers. Here's a nice summary (pp. 41-42 of the opinion):
Unfortunately for DOJ, and as explained fully below, these contentions about the relative power of the federal courts [as to lack of jurisdiction], congressional committee, and the President distort established separation-of-powers principles beyond all recognition. Thus, ultimately, the arguments that DOJ advances to support its claim of absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level presidential aides transgress core constitutional truths (notwithstanding OLC's persistent heralding of these and similar propositions). By contrast, textbook constitutional law readily reveals that, precisely because the Constitution bestows upon the Judiciary the power to demarcate the boundaries of lawful conduct by government officials, the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain subpoena-enforcement disputes concerning legislative subpoenas that have been issued to Executive branch officials. It is similarly well established that, because the Constitution vests the Legislature with the power to investigate potential abuses of official authority--when necessary to hold government officials (up to, and including, the President) accountable, as representatives of the People of the United States--then House committees have both Article III standing and a cause of action to pursue judicial enforcement of their duly authorized and legally enforceable requests for information. What is missing from the Constitution's framework as the Framers envisioned it is the President's purported power to kneecap House investigations that Executive branch operations by demanding that his senior-level aides breach their legal duty to respond to compelled congressional process.
Luckily for this Court, an existing precedent that is on all fours with the instant matter (Miers) already systematically dismantles the edifice that DOJ appears to have erected over the years to enshrine the proposition that a President's senior-level aides have absolute immunity with respect to legislative subpoenas that Congress issues in the course of its investigations . . . .
November 26, 2019 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Courts and Judging, Executive Authority, Executive Privilege, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0)
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Judge Carl J. Nichols (D.D.C.) earlier this week ordered House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal to provide President Trump and the court contemporaneous notice if he seeks President Trump's tax returns under New York's TRUST Act. Judge Nichols further ordered Chair Neal not to receive the tax returns for 14 days after any request.
The order is designed to allow the court to determine whether a request is valid. Without the notice and delay requirements, Chair Neal could request, and receive, the records without President Trump's knowledge, let alone his challenge, then immediately mooting his claim.
New York's TRUST Act authorizes certain congressional leaders to request and receive certain public officials' state tax returns, including the tax returns of the president, without providing prior notice to the officials. After enactment, President Trump sued, arguing that the TRUST Act violated Article I, because such a request would lack a legitimate legislative purpose, and the First Amendment. He also sought emergency relief under the All Writs Act, asking the court for an order that would allow the parties to litigate the legality of any request for his state returns before New York authorities would release them (and thus render any challenge moot).
Congressional Democrats moved to dismiss, arguing that they were immune from suit under the Speech and Debate Clause, and that President Trump lacked standing.
The court ruled that it couldn't yet determine whether Chair Neal would be immune from suit under the Speech and Debate Clause, because he hasn't yet requested the records. The court said that Speech & Debate immunity turns on whether any request would concern matters "on which legislative could be had," and thus turns on legislative purpose. But because nobody has made a request, the court can't determine the purpose of any request.
As to standing, the court ruled that President Trump has standing: because "[t]he risk of future harm to Mr. Trump thus requires just a single step by a single actor, Chairman Neal, who is a party to this litigation," "there is sufficiently substantial risk that future harm could occur to warrant limited relief under the All Writs Act."
The court then ordered that Chair Neal inform President Trump and the court at the same time when he makes any request, and not to receive the tax returns for 14 days after. According to the court, this "will prevent Mr. Trump's claims from becoming ripe and then moot almost simultaneously without notice to him or the Court."
November 24, 2019 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Courts and Judging, Executive Authority, First Amendment, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0)
District Court Holds Military Commission Judge, Prosecutors, Marshall Immune from Suit by Former Officer
Judge James E. Boasberg (D.D.C.) dismissed portions of a case brought by a former Guantanamo military commission officer against a military commission judge and prosecutors and U.S. marshals for issuing and aggressively enforcing a subpoena against him. At the same time, the court transferred the plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act claim arising out of the same events to the District of Massachusetts.
The ruling means that Gill's claims against the individuals is dismissed, but his claim against the government will proceed in Massachusetts.
The case, Gill v. United States, arose when the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay issued a subpoena to Stephen Gill, a former legal advisor on Abd Al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Al-Nashiri's military commission case and current civilian, to testify in that case. Gill sought relief under military rules, but he received no response. Upon the request of the prosecutors in the case, military commission judge Colonel Vincent Spath then issued a "warrant of attachment" compelling Gill's testimony and commanding U.S. marshals to procure Gill's presence in Virginia to testify remotely.
Marshals then stormed Gill's home in Massachusetts, arrested and shackled him, searched his home, and forcibly transported him to Virginia.
Gill filed a claim with DOJ under the FTCA. DOJ didn't respond, so he sued. He also sued Spath, the prosecutors, and the marshals under Bivens, arguing that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The district court dismissed Gill's Bivens claims, holding that the judge, prosecutors, and marshals enjoyed immunity. As to the judge, the court held that Spath served in a quasi-judicial role, and thus enjoyed absolute immunity. The court rejected Gill's argument that Spath issued the warrant in "complete absence of all jurisdiction" based on the D.C. Circuit's decision to vacate every single one of Spath's orders between November 2015 and April 2019 because of a conflict of interest. The court ruled that "even if Spath exceeded his grant of judicial authority, he did not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction." As to the prosecutors, the court held that they, too, were entitled to absolute immunity, because they were acting in their advocacy, not investigative or administrative, roles.
In any event, the court held further that all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, because they didn't violate "clearly established" Fourth Amendment rights.
The court transferred Gill's FTCA claims and request for declaratory relief to the District of Massachusetts.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
A unanimous California Supreme Court ruled the state requirement that presidential candidates disclose their federal taxes violates the state constitution. The ruling is a significant victory for President Trump and the state's GOP.
The ruling notes that there are several pending lawsuits challenging the disclosure requirement under the U.S. Constitution. The California Supreme Court, however, limited its ruling to the state constitution. Because it's limited to the state constitution, it's final, and can't be appealed to the Supreme Court.
The California Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act prohibits the Secretary of State from printing on a primary election ballot the name of a candidate for President of the United States who has not filed with the Secretary of State the candidate's federal income tax returns for the five most recent taxable years. But the state constitution, article II, section 5(c), provides:
The Legislature shall provide for partisan elections for presidential candidates, and political party and party central committees, including an open presidential primary whereby the candidates on the ballot are those found by the Secretary of State to be recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States, and those whose names are placed on the ballot by petition, but excluding any candidate who has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of noncandidacy.
The state high court ruled that the Act impermissibly added a requirement for a candidate to be listed on the ballot, in violation of article II, section 5(c). As the court explained:
[A]rticle II, section 5(c) is most naturally read as conveying a rule of inclusivity for presidential primary elections that the Legislature cannot contravene. This reading is strongly supported by the history of the constitutional text that now appears in article II, section 5(c). This history establishes beyond fair dispute that this language was adopted to ensure that the ballots for parties participating in the presidential primary election would include all persons within said parties deemed to be "recognized candidates throughout the nation or throughout California for the office of President of the United States," except for those candidates who filed affidavits of noncandidacy, so that voters in the primary election would have a direct opportunity to vote for or against these candidates.
Because the relevant provisions of the Act condition a presidential candidate's placement on the primary ballot on compliance with an additional requirement that is concededly not a reasonable measure of whether the candidate is "recognized" as such throughout the nation or California, it conflicts with the rule specified by article II, section 5(c), and is for that reason invalid.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
The Seventh Circuit earlier this month rejected Mark Janus's claim for retroactive fair-share fees he paid to AFSCME, before the Court struck fair-share fees under the First Amendment in Janus.
The ruling is the first in a circuit court to address whether workers in a union shop are entitled to retroactive fair-share fees that they paid before Janus. District courts that have ruled on the issue are unanimous in rejecting the claims.
A contrary ruling--one putting public sector unions on the hook for retroactive fair-share fees--could be (even more) devastating to public sector unions.
Recall that the Court struck mandatory fair-share fees for public-sector unions in Janus. That was huge, because the case overturned a 1977 ruling, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that upheld those fees.
After Janus came down, the plaintiff in that case, Mark Janus, sued again, this time to get back fees he paid before the Supreme Court struck them. AFSCME argued that it collected those fees in good-faith reliance on Abood and therefore wasn't required to repay them.
The Seventh Circuit agreed with AFSCME. But it also emphasized the narrowness of its decision:
It is not true, as Mr. Janus charges, that this defense will be available to "every defendant that deprives any person of any constitutional right." We predict that only rarely will a party successfully claim to have relied substantially and in good faith on both a state statute and unambiguous Supreme Court precedent validating that statute.
The issue is brewing in several other circuits.
Judge William Alsup (N.D. Cal.) yesterday vacated the Trump Administrations "conscience rule" designed to allow healthcare workers to decline services if they have a religious objection to a procedure.
We posted recently on a similar ruling out of the Southern District of New York. Judge Alsup's ruling is narrower than the New York ruling, however, and says only that the rule goes well beyond statutory authorization. Both courts vacated the rule in its entirety.
Judge Alsup focused on how the rule's definitions expand conscience protections well beyond the statutory protections. As the court wrote, "[t]hese definitions . . . make the mischief . . . [and are] the heart of the problem."
In particular, the court held that the definitions of "assist in the performance of," "health care entity," "entity," "discriminate," and "referral" expand conscience protections far beyond what the relevant statutes authorize. The court ruled that the conscience rule was therefore contrary to law, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court described the conscience rule's effect this way: "Under the new rule, to preview just one example, an ambulance driver would be free, on religious or moral grounds, to eject a patient en route to a hospital upon learning that the patient needed an emergency abortion. Such harsh treatment would be blessed by the new rule."
Like the New York court, the California court held that the problems with the rule were so pervasive that it had no choice but to vacate the rule in its entirety.
The ruling means that the administration can appeal, or go back to the drawing board and re-write a conscience rule that comports with the law. But the administration can't enforce this rule.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., issued an order today staying the mandate of the D.C. Circuit to Mazars to release President Trump's tax records.
Recall that the D.C. Circuit last week denied en banc review of a three-judge panel ruling that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had authority to issue its subpoena for President Trump's financial records to his accounting firm, Mazars.
Chief Justice Roberts's brief order simply stayed the D.C. Circuit ruling "pending receipt of a response, due on or before Thursday, November 21, 2019, by 3 p.m. ET, and further order of the undersigned or of the Court." (The order is not a ruling on the merits, and does not foretell what the Court might do.) So we'll get more information on Thursday . . . .
November 18, 2019 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Courts and Judging, Executive Authority, Jurisdiction of Federal Courts, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, November 14, 2019
The D.C. Circuit yesterday denied en banc review of last month's panel ruling that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had authority to issue its subpoena for President Trump's financial records to his accounting firm, Mazars.
The ruling is yet another blow to President Trump and his attempts to protect his taxes. But it also paves the way for Supreme Court review.
We posted on the panel ruling here. The panel held that the Committee acted within its powers, and not in violation of the Constitution, in issuing the subpoena.
Judges Katsas and Rao, both joined by Judge Henderson, separately dissented. Judge Katsas argued that the subpoena posed a "threat to presidential autonomy and independence . . . far greater than that presented by compulsory process issued by prosecutors" in United States v. Nixon "or even by private plaintiffs" in Clinton v. Jones. Judge Rao argued that "the Committee exceeded its constitutional authority when it issued a legislative subpoena investigating whether the President broke the law. Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within the legislative power because impeachment is a separate judicial power vested in Congress."
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) struck the Trump Administration rule designed to allow healthcare workers to decline services if they have a religious objection to a procedure.
The ruling deals a significant blow to the Administration's efforts to expand "conscience protections" for healthcare workers beyond what federal statutes currently provide.
The court held that the Health and Human Services rule exceed statutory authority, violate the law, and violated the separation of powers and the Spending Clause. The court held that it did not violate the Establishment Clause.
The rule provides, among other things, that a healthcare worker can decline to participate in a procedure when the worker has a religious or moral objection, that the worker's employer can't discriminate against the worker based on the worker's beliefs, and that HHS can revoke all HHS funding to any employer who violates these provisions. HHS purportedly adopted the rule under authority of 30 statutory provisions that recognize the right of an individual or entity to abstain from participation in medical procedures.
The court ruled that the sweeping rule went well beyond HHS's statutory authority, and that the agency therefore exceeded its statutory authority in enacting the rule. It also held that the rule violates Title VII and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. And it held that HHS's reasons for enacting the rule were not sufficient (among other things, "HHS's central factual claim of a 'significant increase' of complaints of Conscience Provision violations is flatly untrue."); that HHS's explanation for changing course was insufficient; and that HHS failed to consider the rule's application to medical emergencies and its interplay (and conflict with) Title VII. Finally, the court held that the rule's sweeping definition of "discrimination" "was not a logical outgrowth of the Rule as proposed."
The court also ruled that HHS violated the separation of powers by adopting a rule that allowed the agency to withhold all federal funding, exceeding the agency's authority under federal law. It held that the rule violated the Spending Clause as against state plaintiffs, because the conditions on receipt of federal funds are ambiguous and impermissibly coercive.
However, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the rule violated the Establishment Clause, "because the Rule, on its face, equally recognizes secular ("moral") and religious objections to the covered medical procedures."
The court vacated the entire rule (and declined to sever offending portions, given that the APA violates "are numerous, fundamental, and far-reaching") and held it invalid as to any plaintiff.
November 6, 2019 in Cases and Case Materials, Congressional Authority, Establishment Clause, Executive Authority, News, Opinion Analysis, Separation of Powers, Spending Clause | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday, November 4, 2019
Second Circuit Rejects President Trump's Effort to Protect Taxes, Establish Categorical Immunity from Criminal Investigation
The Second Circuit today flatly rejected President Trump's attempt to halt a grand jury subpoena for the President's financial records directed at his accounting firm, Mazars, based on a claim of absolute presidential immunity from all criminal processes (including investigations).
The ruling deals a sharp blow to the President and his extraordinary efforts to conceal his taxes. Still, the President is sure to appeal. (Just last month, the President lost in the D.C. Circuit on a similar case, dealing with a House subpoena directed at Mazars.)
Recall that the President filed this federal case to stop a state criminal process, in particular, a state grand jury's subpoena to Mazars for the President's financial records, including his taxes. The district court ruled that the President's suit was barred by Younger abstention and, in the alternative, that the President was not likely to succeed on the merits of his immunity claim.
The Second Circuit reversed on the abstention question, but affirmed on the immunity question. The court noted that the subpoena was directed at Mazars, not President Trump, and therefore did not require the President to do anything that might interfere with his ability to faithfully execute the law. It noted moreover that the subpoena seeks information that has nothing to do with the President's official responsibilities, and is therefore not subject to any claim of executive privilege.
As to the President's claim of absolute privilege against any criminal process (including even an investigation), the court wrote that the scant authority on this question goes only against the President. In particular, it noted that the Court in United States v. Nixon held that executive privilege and separation-of-powers concerns did not preclude the enforcement of a subpoena for presidential records. (As to the separation of powers, the court noted, "That the Court [in Nixon] felt it unnecessary to devote extended discussion to the latter argument strongly suggests that the President may not resist compliance with an otherwise valid subpoena for private and non-privileged materials simply because he is the President.") Moreover, the court noted that even the two OLC memos that the President cited--the 1973 Dixon memo, and the 2000 Moss memo, only go so far as immunity from indictment, not mere investigation.
Although the ruling doesn't mean that we'll see the President's taxes soon--again, the President is sure to appeal, and that'll take some time--it is a sharp blow against his claim of absolute privilege from all criminal process.
Friday, November 1, 2019
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction against the Department of Justice's effort to clamp down on sanctuary cities by imposing two conditions on recipients of the DOJ-administered Byrne JAG grant program. The ruling keeps in place the injunction against DOJ's "notice" and "access" conditions that are designed to encourage local governments to cooperate with federal immigration authorities to identify unauthorized aliens.
The Ninth Circuit ruling is just the latest in a line halting the implementation of these conditions. We posted most recently on sanctuary litigation here.
The case, City of Los Angeles v. Barr, tests the two conditions that DOJ put on Byrne-JAG grant recipients without specific congressional authorization. The first condition, the "notice" condition, requires a recipient to honor DHS's requests for advance notice of the scheduled release date and time of any detained alien held in a grant recipient's correctional facilities. The second condition, the "access" condition, requires a grant recipient to give federal agents access to correctional facilities to meet with detained aliens.
The court rejected DOJ's arguments that two statutory provisions authorized it to impose the conditions. The first, a provision in the Violence Against Women Act, says that the Assistant AG shall "exercise such other powers and functions as may be vested in the Assistant Attorney General pursuant to this title or by delegation of the Attorney General, including placing such special conditions on all grants, and determining priority purposes for formula grants." The court held that the notice and access conditions were not "special conditions" under the provision, "because they are not conditions triggered by specific characteristics not addressed by established conditions, as was the case for high-risk grantees under [Department regulations]." It held that they weren't "priority purposes," because "[t]he notice and access conditions are not included as purposes of the Byrne JAG award, nor are they purposes of either of its predecessor grant statutes." The court said that the first provision therefore didn't authorize the conditions.
The second provision, a section of the Byrne-JAG statute itself, authorizes the AG to obtain certain information and to require coordination with agencies. The court held that maintenance and reporting requirements applied to programs under the statute, and not to notice of a detained alien. And it held that the coordination requirement applied to "agencies affected by the program to be funded by the Byrne JAG award," not "DHS agents who are not part of a funded program." The court said that the second provision therefore didn't authorize the conditions, either.
Because no statute authorized DOJ to impose the conditions, DOJ lacked authority to impose them, and the court upheld a preliminary injunction halting them.
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
That's the question raised in a lawsuit filed by the United States last week in the Eastern District of California. The U.S. seeks a declaration that the agreement is unconstitutional and a permanent injunction to halt its operation.
The case, U.S. v. California, tests California's cap-and-trade agreement with the provincial government of Quebec, Canada. The federal government argues that the agreement violates the Treaty Clause (prohibiting states from "enter[ing] into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation"), the Compact Clause (prohibiting states, without congressional consent, from "enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact . . . with a foreign Power"), and the Foreign Commerce Clause. It also contends that the agreement impermissibly interferes with the federal government's powers over foreign affairs.
This intrusion complexifies and burdens the United States' task, as a collective of the states and territories, of negotiating competitive international agreements. Moreover, California's actions, as well as the actions of those acting in concert with it, have had the effect of enhancing the political power of that state vis-a-vis the United States. This is due not only to the effect of the Agreement itself but also stems from the fact that the Agreement could encourage other states to enter into similarly illegal arrangements.
The design of the Constitution requires that the federal government be able to speak with one voice on behalf of the United States in matters of foreign affairs. Allowing individual states in the Union to conduct their own foreign policy to advance their own narrow interests is thus anathema to our system of government and, if tolerated, would unlawfully enhance state power at the expense of the United States and undermine the United States' ability to negotiate competitive international agreements.
The D.C. Circuit today stayed last week's district court order that the Justice Department release material from the Mueller Report that was redacted because it was part of the grand jury proceeding. We posted on the district court order here.
This means that DOJ won't release the material to the Committee--at least not until the appeals court says so.
The ruling is not a surprise--it simply maintains the status quo--and says nothing about the merits. The court ordered the Committee to file a response to DOJ's emergency motion by Friday, and DOJ to file any reply by next Tuesday.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Court Orders DOJ to Release Grand Jury Material from Mueller Report to House,Validates House Impeachment Inquiry
Judge Beryl A. Howell (D.D.C.) today granted the House Judiciary Committee's application for portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted because they were part of a grand jury proceeding. "Consequently, DOJ is ordered to provide promptly, by October 30, 2019, to HJC all portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Rule 6(e) and any underlying transcripts or exhibits referenced in the portions of the Mueller Report that were redacted pursuant to Rule 6(e). HJC is permitted to file further requests articulating its particularized need for additional grand jury information requested in the initial application."
The ruling deals a sharp blow to the Trump Administration and its attempts to protect grand jury material from the Mueller Report from Congress. It's also a clear validation of the legitimacy of the House's impeachment process. It doesn't plow any new legal ground, however. Indeed, the case is only notable because it rebuffs the administration's extraordinary claims.
Still, there's sure to be an appeal.
The case, In re Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, arose when DOJ refused the House Judiciary Committee's request for grand jury material from the Mueller Report. DOJ cited Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). That rule generally prohibits disclosure of "a matter occurring before the grand jury." But it has an exception for disclosure "preliminary to or in connection with a judiciary proceeding." The Committee filed its application with the district court under this exception and requested "the grand jury information referenced in or underlying the Mueller Report as well as grand jury information collected by the Special Counsel relating to four categories of information pursuant to Rule 6(e)'s exception . . . ."
The court ruled for the Committee. The court first concluded that a Senate impeachment trial is "a judicial proceeding." The court said that the phrase "judicial proceeding" has a broad meaning; that an impeachment trial is inherently judicial in nature; that historical practice supports this reading; and that D.C. Circuit law "forecloses any conclusion other than that an impeachment trial is a 'judicial proceeding.'"
The court next concluded that the Committee's investigation is "preliminary to" that judicial proceeding. It held that the Committee's "primary purpose is to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment," and that requiring anything more would result in the court impermissibly intruding on Congress's Article I powers.
Notably, the court emphasized that the Committee's work investigating impeachment is legitimate and constitutionally permissible, and that nothing requires the House to adopt an "impeachment inquiry resolution" to legitimate its work.
Finally, the court surveyed the several reasons why the Committee "has a 'particularized need' for the requested materials,'" including why and how this material may relate to the Ukraine investigation and to any other possible grounds for impeachment.
Thursday, October 24, 2019
The Ninth Circuit this week affirmed a district court's preliminary injunction against agency rules that categorically exempt certain organizations from the Affordable Care Act's contraception requirement.
The ruling is a blow to the administration's efforts to side-step the ACA's contraception requirements for religious groups. We previously posted on the case here.
The case, California v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, tests HHS's final rules that exempt certain entities from the ACA's contraception-coverage requirement. The court upheld a district court ruling that the final rules likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
The ACA provides that group health plans and insurance issuers "shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for . . . with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration . . . ." HHS previously exempted group health plans of certain religious employers, like churches. It also had previously provided for an accommodation for certain nonprofits that had a religious objection: those groups merely had to tell HHS that they objected (then HHS would inform the organization's insurer that it had to provide contraceptive care for the organization's employees without any further involvement of the organization). HHS later also exempted certainly closely-held for-profit corporations (after Hobby Lobby) and modified the exemption-trigger to require objecting organizations merely to notify HHS in writing of its objections (after Wheaton College).
But the Trump Administration went a step farther. It issued rules that categorically exempt entities "with sincerely held religious beliefs objecting to contraception or sterilization coverage" and "organizations with sincerely held moral convictions concerning contraceptive coverage." The rules meant that organizations that might previously have sought and received a waiver would be categorically exempt on their own say-so.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that these rules likely violated the APA. In short, the court said that HHS didn't have authority under the ACA to create categorical exemptions:
The statute grants HRSA the limited authority to determine which, among the different types of preventative care, are to be covered. But nothing in the statute permits the agencies to determine exemptions from the requirement. In other words, the statute delegates to HRSA the discretion to determine which types of preventative care are covered, but the statute does not delegate to HRSA or any other agency the discretion to exempt who must meet the obligation.
The court rejected the government's claim that it issued the rules to harmonize the ACA with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court questioned whether the RFRA even gave the government the authority to determine a violation and then act against federal law to effect it. And it went on to say that the accommodation didn't violate the RFRA, anyway. (Recall that the Court dodged this issue in Zubick.)
The dissent argued that the court lacked jurisdiction in light of a nationwide injunction issued by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court responded at length, but acknowledged that it's an open question whether a federal court's nationwide injunction strips other federal courts of jurisdiction in a more limited case.
The Illinois Supreme Court last week upheld the state's revenge-porn law against a First Amendment challenge. The ruling rebuffed an appeal by a criminal defendant charged with violating the law.
The case, People v. Austin, tested Illinois's effort to criminalize revenge porn. The law provides as follows:
(b) A person commits non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images when he or she:
(1) intentionally disseminates an image of another person:
(A) who is at least 18 years of age; and
(B) who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image; and
(C) who is engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part; and
(2) obtains the image under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private; and
(3) knows or should have known that the person in the image has not consented to the dissemination.
The court first ruled that the law doesn't cover material in any categorical exception to free speech (like incitement, true threats, obscenity, etc.), and it declined to establish a new exception.
It next ruled that the law is a content-neutral restriction on speech: "There is no criminal liability for the dissemination of the very same image obtained and distributed with consent. The manner of the image's acquisition and publication, and not its content, is thus crucial to the illegality of its dissemination." The court went on to hold that the act satisfies intermediate scrutiny, because it serves the state's interest in protecting privacy and "the substantial government interests of protecting Illinois residents from nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images would be achieved less effectively" without it.
The court rejected arguments that the act was overbroad or vague.
The dissent argued that the act was content-based, because "one must look at the content of the photo to determine whether it falls within the purview of the statute," and that it failed strict scrutiny because it lacked a specific intent element. "Instead, simply viewing an image sent in a text message and showing it to the person next to you could result in felony charges."
Friday, October 18, 2019
In an opinion in Jones v. DeSantis, United States District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida held that the Florida statute requiring payment of fines, fees, and costs in order for a person convicted of a felony to have their voting rights restored is unconstitutional and should be enjoined.
Recall that Florida law disenfranchising persons convicted of felonies, held unconstitutional in 2018, was changed by a voter referendum to amend the Florida Constitution. Amendment 4. Amendment 4 changed the Florida Constitution to provide:
any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.
Fla. Const. Art. VI §4. After the amendment was passed, the Florida legislature passed SB7066, codified as Fla. Stat. §98.071 (5) which defined "completion of all terms of sentence" to include "full payment of any restitution ordered by the court, as well as "Full payment of fines or fees ordered by the court as a part of the sentence or that are ordered by the court as a condition of any form of supervision, including, but not limited to, probation, community control, or parole."
Judge Hinkle first addressed Florida's motion to dismiss based on lack of standing and motion to abstain, finding them without merit. Judge Hinkle then discussed whether or not Amendment 4 authorized the statute extending the conditions to all restitution, fines, and fees, acknowledging that "the last word will belong to the Florida Supreme Court," on the matter of that interpretation. However, for purposes of the issue of constitutionality at this stage, the judge assumed that " “all terms of sentence” includes fines and restitution, fees even when unrelated to culpability, and amounts even when converted to civil liens, so long as the amounts are included in the sentencing document."
While the court acknowledged that a state can deny persons convicted of a felony the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment as construed by the Court in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), here the state had amended its constitution not to do so, but with an exception for those persons convicted of felonies who could not meet their financial obligations. Thus, the Equal Protection Clause is implicated. On this point, Judge Hinkle found Eleventh Circuit precedent was clear, citing Johnson v. Governor of Florida, 405 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2005) (en banc). The court quotes the en banc court in Johnson stating:
Access to the franchise cannot be made to depend on an individual’s financial resources. Under Florida’s Rules of Executive Clemency, however, the right to vote can still be granted to felons who cannot afford to pay restitution. . . . Because Florida does not deny access to the restoration of the franchise based on ability to pay, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on these claims.
[emphasis in original]. For Judge Hinkle, this is both the "starting point of the analysis of this issue, and pretty much the ending point."
As support for Johnson and further explication of the standard of review under equal protection doctrine, Judge Hinkle reasoned:
Johnson does not lack Supreme Court support; it is consistent with a series of Supreme Court decisions.
In one, M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996), the Court noted the “general rule” that equal-protection claims based on indigency are subject to only rational-basis review. This is the same general rule on which the Secretary [of State of Florida] places heavy reliance here. But in M.L.B. the Court said there are two exceptions to the general rule.
The first exception, squarely applicable here, is for claims related to voting. The Court said, “The basic right to participate in political processes as voters and candidates cannot be limited to those who can pay for a license.” The Court cited a long line of cases supporting this principle. In asserting that the Amendment 4 and SB7066 requirement for payment of financial obligations is subject only to highly deferential rational-basis scrutiny, the Secretary ignores this exception.
The second exception is for claims related to criminal or quasi-criminal processes. Cases applying this exception hold that punishment cannot be increased because of a defendant’s inability to pay. See, e.g., Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (holding that probation cannot be revoked based on failure to pay an amount the defendant is financially unable to pay). Disenfranchisement of felons has a regulatory component, see, e.g., Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 96-97 (1958), and when so viewed, disenfranchisement is subject only to the first M.L.B. exception, not this second one. But when the purpose of disenfranchisement is to punish, this second exception applies. If, after adoption of Amendment 4, the purported justification for requiring payment of financial obligations is only to ensure that felons pay their “debt to society”—that is, that they are fully punished—this second M.L.B. exception is fully applicable.
Another case applying these principles is Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), which was cited in both M.L.B. and the Johnson footnote. In Harper the Supreme Court said “[v]oter qualification has no relation to wealth.” The Court continued, “[w]ealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.” And the Court added, “[t]o introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter’s qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor.” The Secretary says none of this is true when the voter is a felon, but the Secretary does not explain how a felon’s wealth is more relevant than any other voter’s. And Johnson plainly rejected the Secretary’s proposed distinction.
[some citations omitted]
Judge Hinkle's remedy was not to entirely enjoin the enforcement of the statute. Instead, Florida must follow its procedures and amend them if need be to allow indigent persons to demonstrate their inability to pay any restitution, fines, or fees. Nevertheless, this is a victory for those who have argued that the Florida statute undermined Amendment 4.
October 18, 2019 in Courts and Judging, Elections and Voting, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Fundamental Rights, Opinion Analysis, Standing, State Constitutional Law | Permalink | Comments (0)
Thursday, October 17, 2019
The Ninth Circuit ruled today in Walden v. Nevada that a state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity over any federal claims when it removes a case from state to federal court. The court previously ruled that a state waives immunity over only those federal claims that Congress failed to apply to the states by abrogation when a state removes; today's ruling extends that waiver-by-removal rule to all federal claims.
The case arose when Nevada state employees sued the state for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in state court. The state removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss based on state sovereign immunity.
The Ninth Circuit rejected that claim. The court noted that the Supreme Court ruled in Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Georgia that a state waives Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes state law claims for which it waived immunity in state court. It further noted that it (the Ninth Circuit) extended Lapides so that a state waives Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes federal law claims for which Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity. Then it said the same reasoning justifies extending waiver-by-removal to any federal claims (congressional abrogation or not). In so ruling, the Court quoted Lapides:
It would seem anomalous or inconsistent for a State both (1) to invoke federal jurisdiction, thereby contending that the "Judicial power of the United States" extends to the case at hand, and (2) to claim Eleventh Amendment immunity, thereby denying that the "Judicial Power of the United States" extends to the case at hand.
The ruling means that the plaintiffs' FLSA case, now in federal court, can move forward.