[LI] Article of Impeachment II against Donald Trump was "obstruction of Congress." One of the bases for the Article was the Trump administration’s position that it did not have to comply with House Committee subpoenas to senior administration officials.Donald McGahn, Trump’s former White House Counsel was not named in Article II, but he was among the people who refused to comply. The House Judiciary Committee went to court to enforce the subpoena to McGahn, and a district court judge, in a much ballyhoed opinion, ordered McGahn to appear.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit just ruled that subpoena was unenforceable in court, and reversed. The full opinion (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of the post.
The Court noted the background of impeachment for non-compliance with House subpoenas:
The House of Representatives has since passed two articles of impeachment against the President. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2019). The first article charges the President with "abuse of power"; the second with "obstruction of Congress." Although the second article does not mention McGahn expressly, it alleges that the President unlawfully directed officials "not to comply with" congressional subpoenas and asserts that these directives "were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections." Id. at 6-8. The Senate voted to acquit the President on February 5. See 166 CONG. REC. S936-39 (daily ed. February 5, 2020).
The Committee also issued a report detailing the President’s alleged wrongdoing, see H.R. REP. NO. 116-346 (2019), that explains the Committee’s continued interest in McGahn’s testimony. Specifically, the Committee explained that it intended to use McGahn’s testimony "in a Senate trial on these articles of impeachment" and to continue investigating "President Trump’s obstruction of the Special Counsel." Id. at 159 n.928; see also Committee Suppl. Br. 5-8. If the Committee obtains McGahn’s testimony, it may "consider[] whether to recommend new articles of impeachment." Id. at 7. The Committee also claims that it needs McGahn’s testimony "for pressing legislative and oversight purposes," including the consideration of certain legislation. Id. at 8-9.
The Court held, 2-1, that the subpoena was not enforceable in court: