re: DC Circuit Rules against Trump re House Request for Tax Records

quote:

---

the purpose of the investigation.

---

quote:

---

“Let’s get rid of Orange Man first, and then later on, we can address the possible doors to abuse this ruling opens.”

Then of course, nothing is ever done to close them. When it comes to government, once certain genies are out of the bottle, there’s no putting them back.

---

quote:

---

Surely they don't need his entire return for this made up excuse.

---

quote:

---

All told, from Congress’s centuries-long experience issuing legislative subpoenas, and the courts’ (somewhat less frequent) experience reviewing them, a few principles emerge—principles that control our resolution of this case.

As an initial matter, “whether [a] committee [is] authorized [to] exact the information” it has subpoenaed “must first be settled before . . . consider[ing] whether Congress had the [constitutional] power to confer upon the committee the authority which it claim[s].” Rumely, 345 U.S. at 42–43. In other words, it matters not whether the Constitution would give Congress authority to issue a subpoena if Congress has given the issuing committee no such authority.

That said, once a committee has been delegated “[t]he power of the Congress to conduct investigations,” that constitutional authority “is broad.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187; accord Eastland, 421 U.S. at 504 n.15 (“[T]he power to investigate is necessarily broad.”); Barenblatt, 360 U.S. at 111 (describing Congress’s investigative power as “broad”); Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 160 (1955) (same);McGrain, 273 U.S. at 173–74 (same). “It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes,” “[i]t includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them,” and “[i]t comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. In short, “[a] legislative inquiry may be as broad, as searching, and as exhaustive as is necessary to make effective the constitutional powers of Congress.” Townsend v. United States, 95 F.2d 352, 361 (D.C. Cir. 1938). Expansive as it is, however, Congress’s subpoena power is subject to several key constraints.

First, because “the power of Congress . . . to investigate” is “co-extensive with [its] power to legislate,” Quinn, 349 U.S. at 160, Congress may in exercising its investigative power neither usurp the other branches’ constitutionally designated functions nor violate individuals’ constitutionally protected rights. Congress may not conduct itself as “a law enforcement or trial agency,” as “[t]hese are functions of the executive and judicial departments.” Watkins, 354 U.S. at 187. And Congress lacks any “general power to expose where the predominant result can only be an invasion of the private rights of individuals.” Id. at 200.

Next, precisely because “[t]he scope of [Congress’s] power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution,” Barenblatt, 360 U.S. at 111, Congress may investigate only those topics on which it could legislate, see Quinn, 349 U.S. at 161 (stating that Congress’s “power to investigate” does not “extend to an area in which Congress is forbidden to legislate”). If no constitutional statute may be enacted on a subject matter, then that subject is off-limits to congressional investigators.

And finally, congressional committees may subpoena only information “calculated to” “materially aid[]” their investigations. McGrain, 273 U.S. at 177. Even a valid legislative purpose cannot justify a subpoena demanding irrelevant material.
With these principles in mind, we proceed to the particulars of this case. The Trump Plaintiffs dispute both the Committee’s authority from the House to issue the subpoena and the House’s authority under the Constitution to confer the same. For reasons that shall become clear later, we address these questions in reverse order.

---

quote:

---

Surely they don't need his entire return for this made up excuse.

---

quote:

---

I see the identity of the recipient of the subpoena is being highly relevant to the question of whether said recipient will actually comply with the eventual final court order. Do you disagree?

---

quote:

---

It's called a distinction without a deference.

For example: I want to see AggieHank86's medical records. What difference does it make if I subpoena you or your doctor? The service provider has a sworn duty to protect your privacy by law.

Ultimately if this goes to the highest court either party would be compelled to comply with the decision so what is your point?

Are you having a fanboy fantasy that the service provider somehow isn't going to hold off during the appeals process? LoL k

---

quote:

---

Well the argument they are making is related to whether they need to change the current rules since this payment/inaccuracy went unnoticed until Cohen's testimony. I believe they are basically arguing that depending on what was put in the returns, their reporting requirements may need to be changed so that something like this would be produced.

---

quote:

---

The professional will almost certainly produce the documents in that instance.

---

quote:

---

So this maybe a stupid question.....but I don't remember the Clinton's, Obama's, or Bush's ever having to release their tax returns... I am wrong? In all honesty not trying to be sarcastic.

---