On May 12, the Supreme Court livestreamed more than three hours of arguments in three cases involving the validity of subpoenas issued to third parties for the president’s financial information.
Charlotte Butash is a J.D. candidate at Harvard Law School. She focuses her studies on questions related to presidential power and the administrative state and is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Law & Gender. She holds a B.A. in Political Science and International Studies from Johns Hopkins University.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The outcome of these three cases could have significant implications for congressional power, the Trump family’s business dealings and the transparency of the president’s reelection campaign.
Precedent seems to require the dismissal of the Michael Flynn case, but Judge Emmet Sullivan can ask questions first.
Oral Arguments in the D.C. Circuit En Banc Consideration of Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn and U.S. House of Representatives v. Mnuchin
Judges were skeptical of the Department of Justice’s sweeping arguments but searched for limiting principles on court cases brought by Congress.
On April 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, will hear oral arguments for Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, the case concerning whether the House of Representatives can go to court to enforce subpoenas compelling testimony from Trump administration officials.
It’s worth taking a step back to understand how Trump’s recent actions deviate from the contemporary legal framework governing inspectors general.
The president's announcement includes one emergency declaration under the National Emergencies Act and one under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.