Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
_______
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
DONALD J. TRUMP; THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, INC.; TRUMP
ORGANIZATION LLC; THE TRUMP CORPORATION; DJT HOLDINGS
LLC; THE DONALD J. TRUMP REVOCABLE TRUST; AND
TRUMP OLD POST OFFICE LLC,
Petitioners,
v.
MAZARS USA, LLP; COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM OF
THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Respondents.
QUESTION PRESENTED.......................................... i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND
RELATED PROCEEDINGS ................................. ii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......... iii
TABLE OF APPENDICES ....................................... vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... vii
OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1
JURISDICTION ......................................................... 1
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 2
STATEMENT ............................................................. 4
A. Background ................................................... 4
B. Proceedings Below ........................................ 6
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ...... 13
I. The validity of the Committee’s
subpoena is an important issue of
federal law that the Court should settle .... 13
II. The Committee’s subpoena is invalid ........ 17
A. The Committee’s subpoena lacks a
legitimate legislative purpose ............ 17
v
1. This subpoena is part of an
attempted law-enforcement
investigation by the
Committee ................................... 19
2. The Committee investigation
that led to this subpoena
could not result in
constitutional legislation ............ 25
B. The Committee lacks the statutory
authority to issue a subpoena to
the President ....................................... 31
III. There are no vehicle issues ......................... 36
CONCLUSION ......................................................... 38
vi
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
Page(s)
CASES
Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706 (1999) .............................................. 20
Armstrong v. Bush,
924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .............................. 27
Campbell v. Davidson,
233 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2000) ............................ 29
Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681 (1997) ...................................... passim
Gregory v. Ashcroft,
501 U.S. 452 (1991) .............................................. 33
Griffin v. Padilla,
2019 WL 4863447 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2019) ......... 29
Kilbourn v. Thompson,
103 U.S. 168 (1880) ............................ 10, 17, 21, 22
McGrain v. Daugherty,
273 U.S. 135 (1927) ...................................... passim
Mitchell v. Forsyth,
472 U.S. 511 (1985) .............................................. 20
ix
Morrison v. Olson,
487 U.S. 654 (1988) .................................. 12, 27, 36
NFIB v. Sebelius,
567 U.S. 519 (2012) ........................................ 22, 31
Nixon v. Fitzgerald,
457 U.S. 731 (1982) ...................................... passim
Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486 (1969) .............................................. 28
Schaefer v. Townsend,
215 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................. 29
Tenney v. Brandhove,
341 U.S. 367 (1951) .............................................. 17
OPINIONS BELOW
JURISDICTION
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
B. Proceedings Below
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted,
Appendix A — Appendix
opinionAof the UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, DATED
October 11, 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 19-5142
Appellants,
v.
Appellees.
Appendix A
I.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
see also OGE Form 278e, 2017 Annual Report for Donald
J. Trump, Part 8 n.3 (May 15, 2018), https://oge.app.box.
com/v/Trump2018Annual278 (disclosing that “Mr. Trump
fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017”).
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
II.
Appendix A
Appendix A
But not until 1880 did “the first case reach[] [the
Supreme] Court to challenge the use of compulsory
process as a legislative device.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at
193. In that case, Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168,
26 L. Ed. 377 (1881), the Court held that the House
had exceeded its investigatory authority by opening an
inquiry into the bankruptcy proceedings of a firm into
which the United States had invested money. The Court
explained that Congress’s sole route to a remedy in that
bankruptcy proceeding, like that of all other dissatisfied
creditors, was “by a resort to a court of justice.” Id. at
193. Accordingly, because under those circumstances the
House’s investigation “could result in no valid legislation,”
id. at 195, the Court concluded that the House had
impermissibly “assumed a power which could only be
14a
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
III.
Appendix A
Appendix A
A.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
B.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
But that is not the rule—at least not quite. As the Court
explained in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services
(Nixon II), the mere act of “regulat[ing] . . . Presidential
materials,” “without more,” does not “constitute[] . . . a
violation of the principle of separation of powers.” 433
45a
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381, 109 S. Ct. 647, 102 L.
Ed. 2d 714 (1989) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,
121, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976)). As the Supreme
Court has observed, “separation of powers does not mean
that the branches ‘ought to have no partial agency in, or
no controul over, the acts of each other.’” Clinton, 520 U.S.
at 702-03 (quoting The Federalist No. 47, at 325-326 (J.
Cooke ed.1961) (emphasis in original)); see also Nixon II,
433 U.S. at 442-43 & n.5 (affirming “the more pragmatic,
flexible approach of Madison in the Federalist Papers and
later of Mr. Justice Story” to the separation of powers);
Nixon, 418 U.S. at 703 (“In designing the structure of our
Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign
power among three coequal branches, the Framers of
the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive
system, but the separate powers were not intended to
operate with absolute independence.”). As the Nixon
cases teach, the “proper inquiry focuses on the extent to
which [another branch’s actions] prevent[] the Executive
branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned
functions.” Nixon II, 433 U.S. at 443 (citing Nixon, 418
U.S. at 711-712). Congress can require the President to
make reasonable financial disclosures without upsetting
this balance.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
C.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
IV.
A.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
B.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
V.
Appendix A
So ordered.
77a
Appendix A
I.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
II.
Appendix A
Appendix A
A.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
B.
Appendix A
1.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
2.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
3.
Appendix A
Appendix A
4.
Appendix A
14. When the Supreme Court upheld the grand jury request
for President Nixon’s tapes, it specifically confined its decision
to the context of criminal investigations and noted it was not
concerned with how these issues might be resolved in the context of
“congressional demands for information.” United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683, 712 n.19, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974).
115a
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
***
Appendix A
III.
A.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
B.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
16. The Supreme Court in McGrain did not question the legal
principle articulated by the district court that to investigate the
illegal conduct of the Attorney General would be an exercise of
the judicial power. But see Maj. Op. 48 (contending the Supreme
Court rejected the district court’s reasoning in McGrain). Instead,
the Supreme Court simply disagreed with the district court’s
135a
Appendix A
Appendix A
***
IV.
Appendix A
A.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
B.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
C.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
***
Appendix A
V.
Appendix B
APPENDIX B — MEMORANDUM OPINION OF
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
DATED MAY 20, 2019
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Plaintiffs,
v.
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I. INTRODUCTION
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
II. BACKGROUND
2. Final Vote Results for Roll Call 19, Adopting the Rules of
the House of Representatives for the One Hundredth Sixteenth
Congress, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll019.xml (last visited
May 20, 2019).
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
8. This request for documents was not new. During the early
months of the Trump Administration, Representative Cummings,
who was then the Ranking Member on the Oversight Committee,
along with other Democratic members, asked GSA to produce records
regarding the Old Post Office lease. See Cummings v. Murphy, 321
F. Supp. 3d 92, 97-99 (D.D.C. 2018). When GSA did not cooperate,
the Members brought a lawsuit to force it to disclose the records.
See generally id. This judge handled that very matter and ruled that
the Democratic members lacked standing to bring the case. See id.
at 101-17. That decision is pending before the D.C. Circuit.
Appendix B
to%20McGahn-WH%20Sorial-TrumpOrg%20re%20Financial%20
Disclosures%20Cohen%20Payments.pdf (last visited May 20, 2019).
Appendix B
Appendix B
13. See Mark Mazzetti, et al., Cohen Pleads Guilty and Details
Trump’s Involvement in Moscow Tower Project, N.Y. TIMES, Nov.
29, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/nyregion/michael-
cohen-trump-russia-mueller.html (last visited May 20, 2019).
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
D. Procedural History
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
20. Plaintiffs did not offer any evidence from Mazars; nor did
they submit the memorandum of understanding that they claimed
in their Opposition was critical evidence. The Oversight Committee,
however, did submit that memorandum of understanding to the court
in camera. The court has considered the contents of the agreement
in rendering its judgment.
Appendix B
is no legitimate dispute about the facts here. We’re not saying that
Congressman Cummings didn’t say the things that he’s quoted as
saying . . .” Hr’g Tr. at 61-62.
179a
Appendix B
Appendix B
345 U.S. 41, 43, 73 S. Ct. 543, 97 L. Ed. 770 (1953) (quoting
Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government: A Study in
A merican Politics, 303). Thus, though not wholly distinct
from its legislative function, the informing function is
a critical responsibility uniquely granted to Congress
under Article I. See Landis, 40 HARV. L. REV. at 205
n.227 (describing the informing function as “implied and
inherent” within the legislative function).
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
IV. ANALYSIS
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
B. Plaintiffs’ Contentions
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
279 U.S. 263, 295, 49 S. Ct. 268, 73 L. Ed. 692 (1929). Thus,
the Court has made clear that the mere prospect that a
congressional inquiry will expose law violations does not
transform a permissible legislative investigation into a
forbidden executive or judicial function. See McGrain,
273 U.S. at 179-80 (“Nor do we think it a valid objection to
the investigation that it might possibly disclose crime or
wrongdoing on [the Attorney’s General’s] part.”); see also
Townsend, 95 F.2d at 355 (describing McGrain as holding
that “the presumption should be indulged that the object
of the inquiry was to aid the Senate in legislating . . . even
though the investigation might possibly disclose crime
or wrongdoing on the part of the then Attorney General,
whose name was expressly referred to in the resolution”).
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix B
grounds, Eastland, 421 U.S. at 491. The court granted the stay
because the case presented “serious constitutional questions . . .”
Id. at 1256. No such “serious constitutional questions” are presented
here.
211a
Appendix B
32. The court acknowledges that this case differs from Exxon
in one respect. Unlike Exxon, this case does involve records whose
public disclosure might give rise to “private injury.” 589 F.2d at
594. It is unclear, however, what proportion of the records at issue
in this case are truly “personal,” as opposed to corporate records.
The fact of some uncertain amount of private injury does not change
the court’s calculus.
212a
Appendix B
VI. CONCLUSION
No. 19-5142
Appellants,
v.
Appellees.
Appendix C
ORDER
Per Curiam
BY: /s/
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix D
APPENDIX D — CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
Appendix D
SUBPOENA
Appendix E
/s/
Chairman or Authorized Member
229a
Appendix E
PROOF OF SERVICE
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Appendix E
SCHEDULE A
Appendix E
Appendix E
Schedule Instructions
Appendix E
Appendix E
10. The fact that any other person or entity also possesses
non-identical or identical copies of the same documents
shall not be a basis to withhold any information.
Appendix E
Appendix E
Appendix E
Definitions
Appendix E
Appendix E
Appendix E
Appendix
Appendix F — H.F Res. 507
H. Res. 507
Appendix F
Appendix F
Attest:
Clerk.
244a
Appendix G
Appendix g — h. rES. 660
H. Res. 660
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
Appendix G
SEC. 3. TRANSMISSION
OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS.
Appendix G
Appendix G
Attest:
Clerk.
251a
RULES
of the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Prepared By
Karen L. Haas
Clerk of the House of Representatives
January 11, 2019
252a
Appendix H
***
Rule X
***
****