BREAKING: Appeals court rules for Justice Department in bid to prevent former White House lawyer Don McGahn from testifying before Congress
RULING: "The Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of McGahn, responds that Article III of the Constitution forbids federal courts from resolving this kind of interbranch information dispute. We agree and dismiss this case."
Court is spit 2-1, with GOP appointees in majority and Democratic appointee dissenting
DISSENT: "The court removes any incentive for the Executive Branch to
engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all
but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and
further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional
duties"
engage in the negotiation process seeking accommodation, all
but assures future Presidential stonewalling of Congress, and
further impairs the House’s ability to perform its constitutional
duties"
Even the majority is aware that the ruling doesn't leave Congress with too much ammo: "Congress will obtain
only the concessions it can wrest from the Executive Branch with the ample but imperfect tools at its disposal."
only the concessions it can wrest from the Executive Branch with the ample but imperfect tools at its disposal."
The court did not embrace the absolute immunity argument made by the Justice Department
From concurring opinion: "McGahn urges us to foreclose Article III standing when the Congress, or a House thereof, asserts any institutional injury in any interbranch dispute; I do not believe, however, Supreme Court precedent supports a holding of that scope"
In rejecting House standing, the court seems to think that a ruling in favor of the House would give it unlimited power to sue over all kinds of things, not just enforcement of subpoenas
MAJORITY: "Either the Committee’s asserted “institutional injury”is sui generis—a ticket good for one ride only—or its theory throws open the courthouse doors to lawsuits that seem not to belong"
STORY: U.S. appeals court grants Trump bid to block McGahn testimony to Congress reut.rs/2T9mb9V via @JanNWolfe
@JanNWolfe Next month, the Supreme Court is hearing separate case on House bid to obtain Trump financial records & today's ruling notes that it's well established that courts can adjudicate such cases 
Just one other thing: The DC-based appeals court usually issues rulings at 10am on Tuesday and Friday but for some reason issued this one close to 5pm on a Friday. That's odd
