## Facts

- The House Judiciary Committee investigated potential obstruction of justice and related misconduct by the President after public release of the Mueller Report.
- The Committee subpoenaed Donald F. McGahn II, former White House Counsel, to testify about matters described in the subpoena as possible obstruction of justice, corruption, and abuse of power.
- The President directed McGahn not to appear, relying on an Office of Legal Counsel position that senior presidential advisers have “absolute testimonial immunity” from compelled congressional testimony.
- The Committee sued in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief compelling McGahn’s appearance.
- The district court rejected the asserted absolute immunity and ordered McGahn to appear.
- McGahn, represented by the Department of Justice, appealed, arguing the dispute was not justiciable under Article III.

## Issues

1. Whether Article III permits federal courts to adjudicate a House committee’s civil action to enforce a subpoena against a former senior presidential adviser in an executive–legislative information dispute.
2. Whether the Committee alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury to establish standing and a “case or controversy.”

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit panel vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
- The panel held Article III barred federal-court resolution of this interbranch information dispute because the Committee lacked a cognizable Article III injury.
- The panel declined to reach the merits of congressional subpoena enforcement authority or any claimed “absolute testimonial immunity.”
- Judge Henderson concurred in the judgment on justiciability grounds.
- Judge Rogers dissented, concluding the Committee had standing and the case was fit for judicial resolution.
- Rehearing en banc was granted, vacating the panel opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction absent a concrete, particularized injury sufficient to satisfy Article III standing requirements.
- A claimed injury framed as an institutional loss of leverage in an executive–legislative information conflict may be treated as abstract or generalized rather than judicially cognizable.
- Labeling a dispute “subpoena enforcement” does not necessarily transform an interbranch power contest into a justiciable case.
- Separation-of-powers concerns and historical practice can weigh against using the judiciary to resolve certain information disputes between the political branches.
- When jurisdiction is lacking, courts must dismiss without deciding merits questions such as testimonial immunity or the scope of congressional investigative demands.

## Conclusion

The panel concluded that a House committee’s civil suit to compel a former White House Counsel’s testimony presented a non-justiciable interbranch information dispute and therefore had to be dismissed for lack of Article III jurisdiction, leaving the merits of immunity and subpoena authority unresolved.


Comm. on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives v. McGahn, 951 F.3d 510 (D.C. Cir. 2020)