Amy Howe

Nov 17 2020

House Committee on the Judiciary asks court to put off oral argument on Mueller materials

The House Committee on the Judiciary on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to remove its dispute with the Department of Justice over secret materials from the Mueller investigation from the court’s December argument calendar. The committee told the justices that once a new Congress and President-elect Joe Biden take office in January, it “will have to determine whether it wishes to continue” its efforts to gain access to the materials at the center of the case now before the court, Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary.

The dispute arose last year, after Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report on possible Russian interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William Barr. Barr released a redacted version of the report in April 2019, but a few months later the committee went to court in Washington, D.C., where it asked a federal judge for an order that would require the Department of Justice to disclose the redacted portions of the Mueller report, along with secret grand jury transcripts and materials, for use in the committee’s impeachment investigation.

The district court granted the committee’s request, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that decision. The Department of Justice then went to the Supreme Court, which in May of this year agreed to block the disclosure of the materials; six weeks later, the justices announced that they would take up the case, which was later scheduled for Dec. 2.

In a short filing on Tuesday morning, the committee asked the justices to take the case off the December argument calendar. The committee stressed that its “investigations into misconduct by President Trump, oversight of agency activities during the Trump Administration, and consideration of related legislative reforms have remained ongoing.” But, it suggested, once the new Congress and Biden are sworn in, its plans regarding the application to obtain grand jury materials may change. As a result, the committee concluded, “postponing oral argument would be in the interest of the parties and the Court and may conserve judicial resources.” The committee did not indicate whether or when a new date for argument should be set.

The Department of Justice, the committee told the court, plans to file a response to the committee’s request.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies