Justice Dept. Says White House Can Block Don McGahn's Congressional Testimony
The release of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel's 15-page opinion came as the White House for a second time instructed McGahn, now a Jones Day partner, to defy a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
May 20, 2019 at 04:29 PM
4 minute read
The U.S. Justice Department said Monday that President Donald Trump could block former White House Counsel Donald McGahn from complying with a congressional subpoena demanding his testimony related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller III's investigation.
The release of the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel's 15-page opinion came as the White House for a second time instructed McGahn, now a Jones Day partner, to defy a subpoena issued by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, escalating a standoff between the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers. The judiciary committee had subpoenaed McGahn to appear in a Tuesday morning hearing.
Read the opinion here:
“We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisers to testify about their official duties,” Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel said in the Monday opinion. “This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President's independence from Congress.”
The OLC pointed to the office's previous guidance, including one 1999 opinion published during the Bill Clinton administration, that explained that a congressional subpoena requiring a senior presidential adviser to testify would be “akin to” requiring the president himself to appear.
OLC argued that a former White House Counsel fits the description of a senior adviser.
The opinion also rejected arguments from Nadler and other Democratic lawmakers that the White House's decision to not assert executive privilege over Mueller's report amounted to a waiver of privilege over McGahn's communications with Trump.
While the opinion said Congress cannot compel McGahn to testify before lawmakers, it does not necessarily bar McGahn from voluntarily speaking to Congress as a private citizen.
McGahn's attorney, William Burck of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, informed Nadler in a letter Monday that his client would not appear before lawmakers. Burck's letter said McGahn was following the White House's instruction, consistent with the OLC opinion.
“Under these circumstances, and also conscious of the duties he, as an attorney, owes to his former client, Mr. McGahn must decline to appear at the hearing tomorrow,” the letter, obtained by the National Law Journal, said.
Burck also noted Nadler's earlier threat to potentially hold McGahn in contempt for defying the subpoena. “While we disagree with the Committee's position and hope it will instead seek an accommodation with the White House, Mr. McGahn also must honor his ethical and legal obligations as a former senior lawyer and senior advisor to the President. In short, it is our view that the Committee's dispute is not with Mr. McGahn but with the White House,” Burck said.
Nadler slammed the White House in a statement Monday, describing its move Monday as the “latest act of obstruction from the White House that includes its blanket refusal to cooperate with this Committee.” His statement also noted that a federal court previously rejected similar arguments advanced by the George W. Bush White House in a case dealing with a congressional subpoena for former White House counsel Harriet Miers' testimony.
McGahn had earlier refused to comply with the earlier House Judiciary Committee subpoena, which also sought records related to his cooperation with the special counsel. Burck said at the time he was deferring to the instructions of the White House.
Burck did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute read'Lack of Independence' or 'Tethered to the Law'? Witnesses Speak on Bondi
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Change Is Coming With the New Trump Era. For Big Law, Change Is Already Here
- 2Private Equity in the UK: The 2025 View From Top Partners
- 3Announcing the 2025 Legalweek Leaders in Tech Law Awards Finalists, Lifetime Achievement Winners & Monica Bay Women of Legal Tech Winners
- 4Trump Names DOJ Immigration Official as Acting AG
- 5The Death of SEO: How AI Is Impacting Search, PPC and Cookies
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250