Appeals court deals blow to Democrats’ bid for Don McGahn testimony

A federal appeals court Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee, ruling it does not have legal standing to enforce a subpoena for former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s testimony.

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is the latest defeat for Democrats who subpoenaed Mr. McGahn more than 14 months ago.

Earlier this year, the court vacated the subpoena, but Democrats revived the issue on new legal grounds.

Democrats want to talk to Mr. McGahn under oath about his conversations with President Trump about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Mr. McGahn told the Mueller team that the president asked him to fire the special counsel over purported conflicts of interest. It is not clear what Mr. Trump viewed as a potential conflict. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi assailed the decision as an “unprecedented” challenge to the Constitution and vowed to appeal.

“If allowed to stand, this wrongheaded Court of Appeals panel ruling threatens to strike a grave blow to one of the most fundamental Constitutional roles of the Congress: to conduct oversight on behalf of the American people, including by issuing our lawful and legitimate subpoenas,” the California Democrat said in a statement.

“The ruling represents a flawed judicial attack on the entire House of Representatives. In the past, both Republicans and Democrats have successfully sought to enforce House subpoenas in court,” Mrs. Pelosi continued.

In its ruling, the majority said there is no law authorizing Democrats to go to court and enforce the subpoena.

Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, wrote in the majority opinion that Democrats were trying to “bootstrap” their way into federal court.

He wrote that Congress was free to pass a law giving it the authority to ask a court to enforce a subpoena.

“We note that this decision does not preclude Congress from ever enforcing a subpoena in federal court; it simply precludes it from doing so without first enacting a statute authorizing such a suit,” Judge Griffith wrote.

In the lone dissent, Judge Judith Rogers, a Reagan appointee, said the Constitution grants Congress the power to have courts enforce its subpoenas.

“The committee’s lawsuit arises under the Constitution,” she wrote. “The court, therefore, has subject matter jurisdiction.”