USCA Case #19-5331 DOUGLAS N. LETTER Document #1825391 Filed: 01/23/2020 GENERAL COUNSEL TODD B. TATELMAN PRINCIPAL DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL MEGAN BARBERO DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL JOSEPHINE MORSE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL Page 1 of 3 BROOKS M. HANNER ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 219 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6532 (202) 225-9700 FAX: (202) 226-1360 ADAM A. GROGG ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL SARAH E. CLOUSE ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM E. HAVEMANN ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL JONATHAN B. SCHWARTZ ATTORNEY   January 23, 2020 By CM/ECF Mark Langer Clerk of Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 333 Constitution Ave. N.W. Room 5205 Washington, D.C. 20001 Re: Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives v. McGahn, No. 19-5331 Pursuant to Rule 28(j), we write to inform the Court that the impeachment trial of President Trump commenced on January 21. President Trump’s arguments in the impeachment trial contradict DOJ’s assertion in this case that the Committee may not seek to enforce its subpoenas in court. In his answer to the Articles of Impeachment, President Trump criticized the House for not “seek[ing] to enforce” its “subpoenas in court.” Answer of President Donald J. Trump at 5, In re Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump (U.S. Senate Jan. 18, 2020). President Trump’s impeachment attorney similarly faulted the House Committees for not litigating their subpoena disputes in court: “So take Article III of the United States Constitution and remove it? We’re acting as if the Courts are an improper venue to determine constitutional issues of this magnitude? That is why we have courts. That is why we have a federal judiciary.” Senate Trial Tr., Day 2 pt. 1, at 1:07:08-32, In Re Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump (Jan. 21, 2020). By contrast, DOJ argued to this Court that courts cannot hear suits brought by a House Committee to enforce its subpoenas against the Executive Branch. E.g., Oral Arg. Tr. at 13 (“Congress, when it’s asserting its institutional prerogatives, never had standing.”); id. at 15 (If the courts “resolv[e] a purely political dispute, a dispute between the political branches, it risks politicizing the court and undermining public USCA Case #19-5331 Document #1825391 Filed: 01/23/2020 Page 2 of 3 confidence in the court.”); Br. at 24 (adjudicating subpoena-enforcement suits threatens “permanent harm” to the Judiciary). In light of President Trump’s argument, it is not clear whether DOJ still maintains its position that courts are barred from considering subpoena-enforcement suits brought by the House. At the very least, President Trump’s recognition that courts should resolve such suits undermines DOJ’s contrary threshold arguments in this case, which seek to prevent the House and its committees from seeking judicial resolution of subpoena-enforcement disputes. The Executive Branch cannot have it both ways. Because the impeachment trial has now begun, the need for Mr. McGahn’s testimony is more urgent than ever. We respectfully urge the Court to rule expeditiously. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Douglas N. Letter Douglas N. Letter General Counsel Office of General Counsel U.S. House of Representatives 219 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Telephone: (202) 225-9700 douglas.letter@mail.house.gov Counsel for the Committee on the Judiciary 2 USCA Case #19-5331   Document #1825391 Filed: 01/23/2020 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on January 23, 2020, I caused the foregoing document to be filed via the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit CM/ECF system, which I understand caused a copy to be served on all registered parties. /s/ Douglas N. Letter Douglas N. Letter