Select Page

Don't Tread On My Site

House Judiciary Committtee Asks Supreme Court to Delay Arguments in Case Seeking Grand Jury Materials

Load WordPress Sites in as fast as 37ms!

Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives asked the Supreme Court to reschedule oral arguments in Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary, concerning whether the House’s efforts to obtain grand jury material from the Mueller investigation. The precise question before the Court is whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which would justify the disclosure of such material. The Justice Department, which has custody of the grand jury materials from the Mueller investigation, has refused to provide them to the House Judiciary Committee.

The case is currently scheduled for arguments on December 2. This means that even were the Court to decide the case expeditiously, there would be a new Congress and a new President before the case is resolved. As noted in the House’s motion:

The Committee’s investigations into misconduct by President Trump, oversight of agency activities during the Trump Administration, and consideration of related legislative reforms have remained ongoing. But a new Congress will convene in the first week of January 2021, and President-elect Biden will be inaugurated on January 20, 2021. Once those events occur, the newly constituted Committee will have to determine whether it wishes to continue pursuing the application for the grand-jury materials that gave rise to this case.

According to the motion, the Justice Department is expected to file a response. Presumably, the Department will oppose the motion, which may simply delay the inevitable, as a new administration might adopt a different interpretation of the Federal Rules.

Under the circumstances, including the possibility that the case could become moot if one or both sides to the dispute changes their positions, it would seem totally appropriate to reschedule the argument. We will see whether the Court agrees.



This post has been republished with permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on Reason. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.

-> Click Here to Read the Original Article <-

Advertise on Libertarian Hub

About The Author

Jonathan H. Adler

Founded in 1968, Reason is the magazine of free minds and free markets. We produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce. Reason exists outside of the left/right echo chamber. Our goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to our readers, viewers, and listeners every day. Visit

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.