Access to Justice

In re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary

In In re: Application of the Committee on the Judiciary, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether to approve the House Judiciary Committee’s request for portions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, and other related documents, that the Department of Justice has withheld from the Committee based on grand-jury secrecy rules.

Case Summary

In March 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller issued a detailed report of his investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and President Trump’s many efforts to obstruct that investigation. The version of the report that was released publicly and to Members of Congress, however, was significantly redacted. More specifically, several key portions of the report that referenced grand jury proceedings or materials were omitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which governs when and to whom grand jury materials may be disclosed.  In July 2019, the House Judiciary Committee filed an application requesting that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia release to the Committee those portions of the Report redacted as grand jury materials, as well as any underlying grand jury transcripts or exhibits that are referenced in the redacted portions of the report or that are related to actions of the President that the Committee is investigating. In August 2019, CAC filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of the Judiciary Committee’s request.

Our brief makes several points. First, the brief explains that the tradition of maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is not absolute, and courts have regularly disclosed grand jury materials in appropriate circumstances throughout American history.  The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, enacted in 1942, were intended to continue that tradition of allowing courts to disclose grand jury materials where appropriate.  Among other things, those Rules allow courts to permit disclosure “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”  Second, the brief describes the long history of Congress receiving grand jury materials to further its impeachment and investigative functions, both before and after the Rules’ passage.  Most importantly, a D.C. district court permitted a 1972 grand jury to draft a report detailing its investigation of President Nixon, and the court disclosed that report to Congress.  The D.C. Circuit has twice affirmed this disclosure, recently explaining that a congressional impeachment investigation qualifies as a judicial proceeding under Rule 6(e). Third, the brief explains that the House Judiciary Committee is currently investigating whether to recommend President Trump’s impeachment, which qualifies as a judicial proceeding for purposes of Rule 6(e).  Moreover, disclosure is warranted here given, among other things, the significance of Congress’s impeachment function and the importance of the Committee receiving these materials.

Case Timeline

  • August 30, 2019

    CAC files an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Judiciary Committee

    D.D.C. Amicus Brief
  • October 8, 2019

    The District Court will hear oral arguments

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Pitch v. United States

In Pitch v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether courts have inherent authority to release historically significant grand jury materials.
Access to Justice
August 29, 2019

Rutherford Institute Challenges Government Efforts to Sidestep Rule of Law, Undermine Sixth Amendment Assurance of Right to Legal Counsel

The Rutherford Institute
Pushing back against efforts to sidestep the rule of law and disregard fundamental protections for...
Access to Justice
August 23, 2019

Tribe, Ex-Gov’t Officials Argue Against Border Wall Funding

Law360
A Native American tribe, former government officials, law professors and scores of religious groups threw...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

In Federal Defenders of New York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering whether the ability to sue over constitutional violations is limited by a “zone of interests” test.
Access to Justice
June 1, 2019

The Border Search Muddle

Harvard Law Review
Fourth Amendment originalism is hard. But if Fourth Amendment originalism has an easy case, the...
Access to Justice
June 7, 2019

Cross-border shooting in Nogales likely to turn on ruling in Texas case

Cronkite News
When a Border Patrol agent standing in Nogales shot and killed a teen in Mexico...