Thread by @marty_lederman

Preliminary thread on Trump v. Mazars:

1. Judicious opinion by the CJ. The strongest statement ever by the Court in support of the traditional "accommodation" process between the political branches, which has been shot to smithereens in recent years. /1

The Court won't look kindly on any efforts by either branch to undermine/pretermit that process (which shouldn't bode well for DOJ's absurd "testimonial immunity" theories in McGahn, et al.). /2

The Court reaffirms very broad congressional investigatory powers generally. But it also says that there are special concerns when it comes to investigations of the POTUS--and that in such cases certain congressional objectives are impermissible, namely, ... /3

... Congress may not look to the POTUS as a “case study” for general legislation; and the investigatory demand may not "aim to harass the President or render him 'complaisan[t] to the humors of the Legislature.'” (which doesn't bode well for the FSC subpoena) /4

On the other hand, *HPSCI's* objectives, including "whether the President and his associates had been compromised by foreign actors or interests," are legitimate & important bases for a properly tailored subpoena. The Chief's reliance on the quote from Rumely is important: /5

So my initial impression is that the HPSCI and possibly Oversight Committee subpoenas should withstand the inquiry that the Court directs the lower courts to perform--at least if they're tailored a bit--but probably not the Financial Services subpoena. /6

Which is basically where Justice Kagan was pointing at oral argument, as I discussed here:

justsecurity.org/70185/oversigh…

/7

HPSCI therefore should eventually be able to review the records to ascertain whether Trump is influenced by foreign entanglements. But make no mistake: It almost surely won't be able to do so until after the election, because the remand proceedings will take a while. /8

P.S. That quote is from Woodrow Wilson, about the legitimacy of Congress's "informing" function. It's the centerpiece of our amicus brief. For some reason, Roberts doesn't note that it's Wilson. Cf. Princeton. /5a

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1…

P.S. The Rumely quote is from Woodrow Wilson, about the legitimacy of Congress's "informing" function. It's the centerpiece of our amicus brief. For some reason, Roberts doesn't note that it's Wilson. Cf. Princeton.

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/1… /9