WWTBAM Bored

As expected, Judge Mehta ruled today that the subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee to Donny's long-time accounting firm can be enforced. The reasoning was interesting. Donny's argument was that the Committee's claimed legislative purpose was a pretext and that the Committee actually just wanted to inflict political damage on Donny by obtaining records he would find embarrassing. This closely parallels the argument that was used to attack the Muslim ban -- that Donny's claimed purpose was pretextual and that he was actually motivated by religious animus. Significantly, the trial court (in the Muslim ban case) found as a fact that this was true, which means that it was a finding that the appellate courts had to live with.

The Supreme Court sustained the ban, essentially finding that if the ban's facial purpose was proper, Donny's actual improper intent (as found by the trial courts) was pretty much irrelevant. And that's pretty much what Judge Mehta has just decided with respect to the House Oversight Committee's subpoena. The subpoena had facially valid purposes, so it wasn't for the Court to decide whether the Committee members were actually motivated instead by political considerations.

Donny is expected to appeal. I expect that D.C. Circuit to set the case for expedited briefing and argument. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:As expected, Judge Mehta ruled today that the subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee to Donny's long-time accounting firm can be enforced. The reasoning was interesting. Donny's argument was that the Committee's claimed legislative purpose was a pretext and that the Committee actually just wanted to inflict political damage on Donny by obtaining records he would find embarrassing. This closely parallels the argument that was used to attack the Muslim ban -- that Donny's claimed purpose was pretextual and that he was actually motivated by religious animus. Significantly, the trial court (in the Muslim ban case) found as a fact that this was true, which means that it was a finding that the appellate courts had to live with.

The Supreme Court sustained the ban, essentially finding that if the ban's facial purpose was proper, Donny's actual improper intent (as found by the trial courts) was pretty much irrelevant. And that's pretty much what Judge Mehta has just decided with respect to the House Oversight Committee's subpoena. The subpoena had facially valid purposes, so it wasn't for the Court to decide whether the Committee members were actually motivated instead by political considerations.

Donny is expected to appeal. I expect that D.C. Circuit to set the case for expedited briefing and argument. --Bob

Everything in your life is tactical politics isn't it.

Spock wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:As expected, Judge Mehta ruled today that the subpoena issued by the House Oversight Committee to Donny's long-time accounting firm can be enforced. The reasoning was interesting. Donny's argument was that the Committee's claimed legislative purpose was a pretext and that the Committee actually just wanted to inflict political damage on Donny by obtaining records he would find embarrassing. This closely parallels the argument that was used to attack the Muslim ban -- that Donny's claimed purpose was pretextual and that he was actually motivated by religious animus. Significantly, the trial court (in the Muslim ban case) found as a fact that this was true, which means that it was a finding that the appellate courts had to live with.

The Supreme Court sustained the ban, essentially finding that if the ban's facial purpose was proper, Donny's actual improper intent (as found by the trial courts) was pretty much irrelevant. And that's pretty much what Judge Mehta has just decided with respect to the House Oversight Committee's subpoena. The subpoena had facially valid purposes, so it wasn't for the Court to decide whether the Committee members were actually motivated instead by political considerations.

Donny is expected to appeal. I expect that D.C. Circuit to set the case for expedited briefing and argument. --Bob

Everything in your life is tactical politics isn't it.

I make my living thinking through (as best I can) all of the consequences of the legal arguments I make on behalf of my clients. It's one of the things I'm best at, and I'm constantly finding that opposing counsel hasn't done so, which allows me to turn their own arguments against them. So I find it entertaining to discover the same phenomenon at play here. --Bob