Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 111319 FEDDC, 19-5142
|Opinion Judge:||Per Curiam.|
|Party Name:||Donald J. Trump, et al., Appellants v. Mazars USA, LLP and Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives, Appellees|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge; HENDERSON , Rogers, Tatel, Griffith, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, WILKINS, KATSAS, and RAO, Circuit Judges. KATSAS, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge Henderson joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: Rao, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge H...|
|Case Date:||November 13, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. l:19-cv-01136)
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc
Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge; HENDERSON [*] , Rogers, Tatel, Griffith, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, WILKINS, KATSAS, and RAO, Circuit Judges.
Appellants' petition for rehearing en banc and the response thereto were circulated to the full court, and a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges eligible to participate did not vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
KATSAS, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judge Henderson joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:
If the competing opinions here demonstrate anything, it is that this case presents exceptionally important questions regarding the separation of powers among Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judiciary. For the second time in American history, an Article III court has undertaken to enforce a congressional subpoena for the records of a sitting President. The first time that was attempted, we took the case en banc, refused to enforce the subpoena, and stressed that the availability of impeachment foreclosed any conclusion that the records at issue were "demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment" of Congress's legislative prerogatives, even when Congress was investigating significant allegations of presidential misconduct. Senate Select Comm. on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 731-33 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc).
This case differs from Senate Select Committee in two respects, but neither diminishes its comparative importance. First, the subpoena at issue is directed not to the President directly, but to an accounting firm holding his personal financial records. Yet as Judge Rao has explained, that difference in form does not matter, because the subpoena in substance targets his records. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-5142, slip op. at 9-11 (Rao, J., dissenting). Second, Senate Select Committee involved official communications over which the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP